Prof explains truth of free will

Contemporary debate focuses on nature, not existence

While scholars have argued over the concept of free will for centuries, JMU's philosophy department sponsored a "What is the Evidence That We Have Free Will?" lecture last Friday.

Philosophy professor Noel Hendrickson attacked both sides of this debate, believing that only through his approach can people discover the truth behind free will.

At the debate was the question of free will — the true ability for people to control their courses in life through the choices and actions they make — vs. determinism, in which events are merely the inevitable outcome of circumstances.

"The contemporary debate has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of free will, and I believe this is not an accident," Hendrickson said.

Most of the debate in modern thought is focused on the nature of free will, not whether it actually exists, he said.

Hendrickson said he believes this "lack of attention is the inevitable result" of what he labels "methodical valuationism." He uses this term — his own invention — to describe how the common approach limits the definition of free will, and, in turn, prevents a balanced debate on the issue.

Most people view free will to have a strictly "evaluative role;" that is, the idea that encourages people to assign either praise or blame to a person for their actions.

"People assume free will only does one thing — the moral responsibility of individuals," Hendrickson said. "If that's all free will does then all we have to do to prove free will exists is to prove moral responsibility exists," Hendrickson said. "If all we can say is it's obvious, why are we surprised when no one talks about it?"

After exposing what he saw as the flaws in this current approach, Hendrickson put forth his own method, which he believes is a much better way to tackle the free will question. He calls this approach "methodical pluralism" because of its less restricted definition of free will.

"Methodical pluralism explicitly acknowledges that free will has other roles," Hendrickson said. "It opens a completely new way to talk about free will."

He said that like any good method, his is neutral, so the argument for the existence of free will is still open.

"This is what we want out of a method, neutral as to which way it is going to go," Hendrickson said.

Senior Jenn Bowen said, "He really knew what he was talking about. I liked how he focused on his own ideas but still incorporated previous philosopher's ideas in his presentation."