Afficher cette page en : Français Traduire Désactiver pour : Anglais Opt

Probabilism

Store

10 Benefits of Not Believing in

Free Will
determinism, free will

In this article I want to focus, in the general sense, on

10 of the many benefits of not believing in free will as
defined here, if one understands the reasons behind why
it doesn’t exist and what such implies. You’ll notice that
many of the below benefits interconnect with each other.

So here we go…

10 Benefits of NOT Believing in

Free Will
**********
1) Good Critical Thinking Skills Are
More Likely
The belief in free will is logically incoherent, meaning
logically impossible for the two ways events can “possibly”
come about (causally/acausally). Holding to a logically
incoherent belief often means that one’s critical thinking
skills are poorly calibrated. And if such is poorly
calibrated, this leads to not only poor thinking about the
topic of free will, but also many other topics as well. If one
understands the rational reasons why free will doesn’t
exist, that often says something positive about their ability
to think critically and not from a biased perspective.
Critical thinking skills are not only helpful in our day to day
lives, but also in our capacity to better the world.

2) Not Believing in Untrue Things is

Helpful
Holding to a false belief such as free will means that
one will base other thoughts off of that false belief. For the
most part basing things off of what actually is the case
tends to be more reliable and helpful in the real world. If I
were to truly believe that giving people a tablespoon of
battery acid (to drink ) will cure them of the common cold,
that misinformation is harmful to how I’d act around a
situation in which I had battery acid and someone had a
cold. The closer to reality our information actually is, the
more useful it’ll be for such reality. Beliefs, after all, have
consequences!

3) Other Important Topics

Become Corrected
If we don’t believe in free will, that understanding ties into
some extremely important topics such as ethics, policy,
economics, justice, religion, how we think about ourselves
and others, and many other topics that affect us and the
world we live in. If we hold to an incorrect belief that free
will exists, numerous topics have an
incorrect understanding as a base level structure. This
causes more problems than not in the form of bad
thinking, poor laws and policy, and so on. To fix these
problems, we need to start by not having faulty premises
(such as “free will exists”), and make adjustments to these
other topics around our new understandings.

4) A Better Perspective on Causality

Understanding that the decisions people make are
directed by long, interweaving lines of causality means
that one understands how things influence such decisions.
This understanding means that rather than blame a
person for making the decision they do, we are more likely
to look for environmental or genetic conditions that lead to
such thinking and doing. When we do this, we look for
realistic causal solutions to prevent problematic future
decisions, rather than wagging fingers and simply
thinking “tsk tsk, they should have done otherwise” as we
throw our hand up in the air.

5) Feeling More Interconnected

Once we recognize that our conscious thoughts and
experiences are part of interwoven causal lines that lead
to all of the external events and people we have interacted
with, we understand that we are indeed connected in very
important ways. This means that those variables we are
connected to influence us, and we influence them. From
this we recognize in which ways we are influenced and
can influence, and how working together with others is
more of a way of extending ourselves to the connections
we have. The understanding that our causality
isn’t contained but rather extends outward often drives a
stronger sense of being interconnected with others and
the universe we are part of.

6) Blame Removal
Once we recognize that
someone couldn’t have done
otherwise, we tend to remove
the notion of blame in any
strong sense ofthe word. At best
words such as “blame” and
“responsibility” after the fact
become superficial words used
only for the sake of utility in
order to correct for future action.
No person is truly blameworthy if they couldn’t have, of
their own accord, done otherwise.

This means we can remove a whole lot of unnecessary

blame that we place on our own shoulders, and instead
become more forward thinkers in the sense of realizing we
couldn’t have done, of our own accord, otherwise at that
point, but we don’t have to necessarily repeat past
mistakes if we causally learn from them. We can remove
the blame from people that do things we don’t like in the
world, and rather look for causal solutions while
understanding they didn’t have the causal variables to be
different. This lead to…

7) More Compassion
When we understand that people are the way they are
through such causal mechanisms, such tends to lead to a
more compassionate response. Even when we need to
incarcerate or create negative deterrence to prevent
crime, we’ll tend to be compassionate about the
criminals circumstances (which also prevents us from
overuse of negative deterrence).

These things can always be traced back to the persons

environment and their genetics (a combination of both),
both of which they had no real say in.

8) Inequality and Unfairness are No

Longer Justified Through “Deserve”
One consequence of understanding that we don’t have
free will is the recognition that one is not more or less
deserving than another. This makes any justifications of
inequality and unfairness rationally unjustified, as
entitlement and deserve go hand and hand.

The concept of one being more or less deserving of

something than another justifies that one’s well-being be
placed above another. Without free will, that idea of being
more or less deserving needs to be dropped, as the state
someone is in at any given point isn’t something that could
have, of their own accord, been different. Once such
“deserve” is dropped, so does the ability to justify
inequality and unfairness based on that notion.

For more info on this read here:

Deserve Justifies Inequality

How Free Will Belief Justifies Wealth Inequality –
INFOGRAPHIC

9) Less Egoism
With the lack of free will comes the removal that we are
these contained “selves”. Rather, we are a product of
many forces that produce us and continually bombard us.
We recognize that we aren’t the means that produce
“ourselves”, and that we shouldn’t take credit for such. We
can’t look down on another who, if we were them atom for
atom, in the same time, space, and environment, we’d do
exactly as they have (and if they were us – they’d do
exactly as we have). This leads to a loss of egoism and
egotism.

Egoism and egotism leads to many problems in the world,

including the above idea that one is more or less
deserving than another. Such leads to arrogance,
selfishness, greed, and a sense of entitlement to whatever
one wants.

10) Anger Becomes Irrational

When we realize a person couldn’t have, of their own
accord, done otherwise, the anger we have for them
becomes irrational. At best it becomes removed, at worst
anger still lingers but one recognizes it as not being very
rational, and somewhere in the middle it turns to
frustration (rather than anger) of the fact that such was a
causal output. Emotions like anger and hatred take a hit
on being rationally justified, where as emotions like love
are “unscathed”.

After all, how much sense does it make to be angry at a

person if they couldn’t have, of their own accord, done
something different? Being able to blame the person is the
main thing that justifies being able to be angry at them.

Of course if one does become angry, one didn’t have the

free will not to be. But if they understand that free will is an
illusion, a causal recognition that such anger doesn’t
make a whole lot of sense often takes place.

**********
Notice in the beginning of this article I said these 10 items
were benefits “if one understands the reasons behind why
free will doesn’t exist and what such implies”. If, on the
other hand, one doesn’t understand the reasons why and
what it implies, but still think free will doesn’t exist, many
of these benefits become wasted. This is because many
of these not only rely on the understanding that we lack
free will, but also on having the
appropriate understandings that surrounds such (the why
and what that “why” implies).

If, on the other hand, someone incorrectly thinks we lack

free will due to fatalistic notions or due to everything being
“random” and out of our control in that type of way, these
are truly poor ideas surrounding the understanding that
we don’t have free will. And if someone believed in free
will yet has a temporarily imposed disbelief due to some
quick information, without actually being educated on the
topic, these poor notions tend to come to the forefront.
Keep in mind that negative behaviors that come about
through misunderstandings of why we don’t have free will
(and wrong ideas about what it means to not have it) are
not arguments against educating people that we don’t
have free will. Rather, they are arguments regarding how
we need to go about doing so.

If we do so haphazardly, we’ll get poor results based on

misunderstandings and misinformation. This is no different
with anything new. Handing someone a live chainsaw who
has never used or even seen one before might not give
the best result unless you explain to them how to use it
first. Indeed, a finger may even wind up on the ground. It
seems educating them on where their hand might go is
something you don’t want to leave out of the details.

If we inform people they don’t have free will by giving

people a more complete story (the details), they won’t
tend to fall into the misinformation trap as easily. They
won’t hold on to the wrong end of the no free will
chainsaw, so-to-speak.

Read here about the wrong ways to tell people they don’t
have free will:

A Temporary Imposed Lack of Belief in Free Will?

Seriously?

This is why I write articles and have written a book on our

lack of free will, so people don’t fall into the traps on
wrong-heading thinking about the topic. And with the
correct understanding of why we don’t have free will and
what such does and doesn’t mean, all of the benefits
above come to light and more. And if you think about how
those benefits apply to the world around us in just about
every way, you’d see that the world would be a very
different place if the majority of people had this
understanding about free will’s non-existence.

In other words, the idea that things wouldn’t be any

different if people understood that we don’t have free will
is another display of wrong-headed thinking. Rather, the
understanding would change our world for the better in
the most radical of ways imaginable!

* As a further note, such benefits may not be experienced

immediately. Sometimes it takes a while for a lifetime that
has built a “free will psychology” to convert over to the
new way of thinking. Many people will fall back into old
habits, though eventually this new way will take hold and
one’s psychology will adjust.

Bio Latest Posts

'Trick Slattery
'Trick Slattery is the author of
Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the
Betterment of Humankind. He's an
author, philosopher, artist, content
creator, and entrepreneur. He has
loved and immersed himself in
philosophy since he was teenager. It
is his first and strongest passion.
Throughout the years he has built a
philosophy based on analytic logic
and critical thinking. Some of the
topics he is most interested in are of a
controversial variety, but his passion
for the topics and their importance
drives him to want to express these
ideas to others. His other passions
include pen and ink line art and digital
artwork.

Sharing is caring!

! " # $ %
Posted by 'Trick Slattery at 9:41 am

15 Responses to “10 Benefits of Not Believing

in Free Will”

Comments (15)

1. Steven Pitkin says:

July 27, 2015 at 1:04 am

It’s too bad that you don’t take time to study truly Orthodox
Christianity. I’m not talking Russian or Greek Orthodox,
but Reformed Theology.
Each one of the 10 reasons listed are totally compatible
with what you have written, although the source of all
origin is God.
Since I cannot go into too much detail, I can say that in
conjunction with what you’ve written, Reformed Theology
levels the playing field, which means that no one is better
or more ahead of anyone else. Taking “blame” as an
example, what I feel guilty about may or may not be true,
but forgiveness is found it the Creator who took that guilt
upon Himself, leaving me to live a life of gratitude to him.
Unlike other religions where one must “do” something,
one finds it was already done for myself 2000 years ago
just out of His mercy.

'Trick Slattery says:

July 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm

Interesting that these are compatible with a

certain religious understanding. That being
said I prefer to keep things on a secular level
for the discussion for various reasons (e.g. I’m
not a believer in a creator). That being said, no
matter if someone believes in a creator or not,
this lack of free will understanding still
follows…and many of the thoughts that go
along with it. There is a distinction between
fatalism and determinism, however, that is
important. Later good sir.

Steven Pitkin says:

September 11, 2015 at
7:54 pm

I am not speaking of fatalilsm, but

objective truth that was lost a long
time ago. I am perfectly at ease
with your not believing in a creator,
because unless the Creator does a
supernatural work in one’s life,
there is no chance in believing.
Hence, we have total agreement in
the fact that “free will” is a total
illusion at best. I did not
consciencely make a choice to lose
most of my friends and stop all I
was enjoying when I saw myself in
a different light. It was an outside
force (As you may relate to) that
pulled me into a newness of life,
which paradoxally agrees with most
of what you espouse. I respect your
right to keep this secular in
discussion, but you will never begin
to know how much you have in
common with a form of Christianity
that is trying to hold off the
“dumbing down of the Church
along with society in general. When
I was dragged into the Kingdom I
was looking for another football
game to watch, when I heard what
is necessary for repentance, and
that was the Gospel. The correct
gospel. Gospel is used from
everything from music to movies,
but unless one knows the true
gospel your path is already
predetermined.
May I respectfully add, that the
Apostle Paul, a hater of Christians
himself once said “But we preach
Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling block, and unto the
Greeks (Gentiles) foolishness; But
unto them that are called, both
Jews and Greeks, Christ the power
of God and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is
wiser than men; and the weakness
of God is stronger than men. For
you see in your calling, brethren
how that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many mighty, not
many noble are called: But God
has chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise; and
God as chosen the ewak things of
the world to confound the things
which are mighty.” (1 Corinthians
chaper one: vvs. 23-27)
I will stop since this is your wish
and I heartily respect you for your
fight against much of what I too
fight against in the American
Church. Most “Christians” in this
Country believe that their faith is
determined by their “decision for
Christ” and not what the Bible says.
The Bible says we are born dead
spiritually and unless God has
determined (before the world was
created) that you are to be saved
from eternal death, then no
“decision” on your part can change
that. There is no such thing as
“decisional redemption”. Yes we
decide to follow Christ, but not out
of anything that we have done, but
strictly by His mercy. This is so no
one can boast that they are more
righteous than anyone else. Hence
you have probably heard in your
past from some well meaning
Christian that unless you believe
like me you will perish forever, but
that’s not the “Good News of
Christ.”
And so I defer to you my friend. If
you are ever curious or ever want
to be backed from what is objective
and not subjective truth, let me
know. Good day!

'Trick
Slattery
says:
September 11, 2015 at
9:50 pm

Thanks Steven. I’m glad

that even if we can be
so far away from each
other on the topic of
religion or theism, that
we can share the
understanding that
there is no free will.
What makes the ability
to share this something
great is that we can
both have compassion
and understandings for
the causal variables that
have lead to our
positions. You don’t
blame me for my
skepticism of god and
religious thought, and I
don’t blame you for your
belief in such. What this
means is that we each
have arrived at where
we are, what we think,
and how we feel,
because we each had
different upbringings,
experiences, and paths
that have created
diverging differences in
thought, yet we still
arrived at similar
conclusions on this
topic even if our
methodologies and
epistemological
standards are probably
opposing. And though I
don’t believe in the
supernatural, or
miracles, or non-
physical ideas, or even
Jesus in any religious
sense (I believe there
may have been a man
named Jesus)… it is a
sort of amazing feat for
two people so different,
to share the lack of
belief in free will, and
due to that one fact
alone, be so
understanding of the
others position even
when they are in such
great opposition for
these other beliefs. This
is one of the reason’s
the understanding that
there is no free will is so
important. It removed so
much disdain and
contempt people have
for those that do not
believe the same way,
and replaces it with
understanding,
compassion, a
willingness to look for
common ground, and a
willingness to look for
the causes. That,
indeed, is a great feat in
itself.

Have a great day,

‘Trick

Steven
Stokes
says:
February 4,
2017 at 5:35
pm

‘Trick,

It seems like
Mr. Pitkin
holds the
view that
there is no
freewill
because
there is a
God that is
in control of
everything
that
happens.
Whereas,
non-
freewillists
make the
claim
because of
the
impossibility
of free will,
being that it
is logically
incoherent.
Which
means, even
if there is a
god(s), it too
has no
freewill,
which I
guess is
where Mr.
Pitkin’s non-
freewill belief
would
diverge from
non-
freewillism
position.

Carl van
Niekerk
says:
February 4,
2017 at 9:51
pm

Although two
of the poles
of
Christianity
namely
Calvinism
and
Arminianism
hold that
either God
or man is in
control, the
third pole of
the triangle
holds that
neither is in
control. Love
cannot act
otherwise
and although
it is almighty,
it is still a
limited
resource.

CD Womack says:
February 21, 2018 at
2:09 pm

I am interested in your delineation

between ‘fatalism’ and
‘determinism’.

'Trick
Slattery
says:
February 21, 2018 at
2:22 pm

Hi there. Sorry, I noticed

the link on this page
was not working so I
fixed that. Here it is:
https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/determinism-
vs-fatalism-infographic/

2. Paul R. Hughes says:

August 4, 2015 at 3:29 am

Though I waste my breath (or keystrokes), I assert that

there is NO WAY OF KNOWING (apart from a priori belief)
whether anyone “could have acted differently” then s/he
did. Your belief in strict determinism (as an alternative to
absolute acausality) is your (determined?) choice: so be it.
The prospect of being blamed (and punished) for one’s
actions surely plays a significant role in maintaining social
stability and peace.
Your insistence on a philosophically naive (read ignorant
or stupid) version of “free will” is a transparently deliberate
“red herring” (or straw man).
You do not, and cannot, know to what degree human
choices are, in themselves, causal. Unpredictability is
equivalent to freedom of choice.

'Trick Slattery says:

August 4, 2015 at 1:27 pm

Hi Paul,

Words such as “though I waste my breath (or

keystrokes)” are unnecessary. I welcome your
thoughts on the topic as long as any
discussion holds a modicum of respect in light
of disagreement. If you truly think you are
wasting your breath, perhaps you could use a
little of that free will to restrain yourself from
such?

That being said, on to your criticisms:

“I assert that there is

NO WAY OF KNOWING
(apart from a priori belief)
whether anyone “could
have acted differently” then
s/he did.”

Am I to assume you think all knowledge must

be a posteriori? That, for example, we can’t
know (beyond any reasonable doubt) that
colorless pink square circles do not exist (as
we cannot view every part of the universe for
such a thing)?

“Your belief in strict

determinism (as an
alternative to absolute
acausality) is your
(determined?) choice: so
be it.”

Determinism is the idea that every event has a

cause. I do not assert such, I’m agnostic on
determinism / indeterminism. Indeterminism is
the idea that some events do not have a
cause. I’m a hard incompatibilist, not a hard
determinist – meaning free will is incompatible
with both possibilities.

“The prospect of being