Free Will is Reasonable

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.Pro defines free will as “the ability to have chosen otherwise within the same given circumstances.” If, given the same set of conditions, one could have chosen otherwise, it would follow that there are no conditions prior to and up to the moment of choice that are sufficient to determine what that choice will be.There are several problems with this view of free will.The first problem is that it violates the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). According to the PSR, there is a sufficient reason for everything that happens. If there is any such thing as free will as we are defining it in this debate, there some things happen without sufficient reasons. After all, if antecedent conditions were sufficient, then the outcome would be inevitable, but since the outcome of free will choices are not inevitable, antecedent conditions are not sufficient to explain them.That’s another problem with free will. If a person acts freely, there is no sufficient explanation for why they did what they did. People are in the habit of explaining what they did by saying things like, “I did that because I wanted to,” or “Because it seemed like a good idea.” But if people could have done otherwise even given their prior desires, motives, etc., then none of these things really explain their behavior.So free willers are obliged to talk inconsistently. What they really ought to say is, “I did that partly for such and such reason, and partly for no reason at all.” But nobody talks like that because no free willer is consistent.In fact, if our actions could have been otherwise, regardless of antecedent conditions, then nobody can know ahead of time what they are about to do. Even if you have every intention of acting a particular way, as long as you could act differently, you cannot anticipate how you will act. Your actions should come as a surprise to you.If one can act contrary to all influence from antecedent desires, inclinations, biases, motives, etc., then free will actions really just amount to accidents. You have no control over them. You can only have control when acting out of your own intentions. But if your intentions are not sufficient to determine your acts, then your acts are unintentional. They are literally not done on purpose.That means your actions cannot be subject to praise or blame. You can only be morally accountable for your actions if you do them on purpose. But if your actions are unintentional accidents, then you cannot be morally accountable for them. So free will eliminates moral accountability.Free will also eliminates rationality. If antecedent conditions do not determine your beliefs, then your beliefs are arbitrary. Your beliefs can only be rational to the degree that they are determined by prior reasons, perceptions, and evidences. The farther these things are divorced from each other, the less rational the belief. So as long as free will is engaged in the belief-producing enterprise, rationality will be undermined. That means free will is self-refuting because the arguments that gave rise to free will are not sufficient to explain belief in free will. Belief in free will is, at least partially, arbitrary and accidental.