1. Childhood’s End: One Small Choice Feraco Myth to Science Fiction 8 January 2013

2. Are we free? Are we good? Are we here for a reason?

3. Can life be meaningful if our choices aren’t ours to make? Can life be meaningful if our choices aren’t ours to make? Should we try to resist our human nature (if it’s even possible)? Should we try to resist our human nature (if it’s even possible)? Is a talented artist still worthy of respect if a divine being guided her hand – or even simply provided conditions that allowed her to take advantage of her talents? Is a talented artist still worthy of respect if a divine being guided her hand – or even simply provided conditions that allowed her to take advantage of her talents? What if it isn’t God, but society, that provides her with the conditions she needs? What if it isn’t God, but society, that provides her with the conditions she needs?

4. The principles behind a meritocracy are fairly simple: The principles behind a meritocracy are fairly simple: All humans make choices. In most situations, human beings will make the right choices. In some situations, one or more right choices and one or more wrong choices will be available; individuals will have reasons for making both correct and incorrect choices. Individuals who resist the temptations of bad choices and consistently make wise ones will be rewarded for their virtues – which are, of course, demonstrated by their choices.

5. Now look closer. Now look closer. A meritocracy purports to reward one thing: virtue. A meritocracy purports to reward one thing: virtue. We may claim to care about the end result of something more than the motivation behind it, but we do value that motivation greatly. We may claim to care about the end result of something more than the motivation behind it, but we do value that motivation greatly. If someone gives you a genuine compliment, and another person gives you that same compliment later in order to manipulate you into liking them more, we could claim that they’ve done the same thing. If someone gives you a genuine compliment, and another person gives you that same compliment later in order to manipulate you into liking them more, we could claim that they’ve done the same thing.

6. But in your eyes, those actions certainly aren’t equivalent. But in your eyes, those actions certainly aren’t equivalent. The thing that distinguishes them – motivation – gives them meaning, because we believe that those motivations reflect the “core” of a person. The thing that distinguishes them – motivation – gives them meaning, because we believe that those motivations reflect the “core” of a person. In theory, meritocracies function the same way, and for the same reason: to reward a man for his goodness. In theory, meritocracies function the same way, and for the same reason: to reward a man for his goodness.

7. But they can’t function that way. But they can’t function that way. Who walks around in today’s society measuring virtue – capabilities, capacity for goodness, or potential, really, since that’s all undemonstrated virtue really is? Who walks around in today’s society measuring virtue – capabilities, capacity for goodness, or potential, really, since that’s all undemonstrated virtue really is? We measure action, not virtue. We measure action, not virtue. As a culture (or a mishmash of different ones), we’ve learned to obsess over actions, deeds, results, even at the expense of caring about what someone could do. As a culture (or a mishmash of different ones), we’ve learned to obsess over actions, deeds, results, even at the expense of caring about what someone could do.

8. It’s why so many of my students, whether my freshmen in years past or my seniors from this year, list a desired grade as one of the primary things they want out of my class on their Great Expectations assignment: the grade represents a tangible demonstration of their capabilities. It’s why so many of my students, whether my freshmen in years past or my seniors from this year, list a desired grade as one of the primary things they want out of my class on their Great Expectations assignment: the grade represents a tangible demonstration of their capabilities. An A isn’t meant to just be some letter: it’s a reaffirmation to the larger world that Student X is an exceptional Y. An A isn’t meant to just be some letter: it’s a reaffirmation to the larger world that Student X is an exceptional Y.

9. And that’s all well and good, really. And that’s all well and good, really. I care less about whether you’re intelligent than about whether you a) actually learned something and b) were able to use what you learned. I care less about whether you’re intelligent than about whether you a) actually learned something and b) were able to use what you learned. On the other hand, if I made it impossible for you to learn, it’s not exactly fair for me to condemn you for your failure. On the other hand, if I made it impossible for you to learn, it’s not exactly fair for me to condemn you for your failure. This is why Gladwell spends the bulk of Outliers savaging what he sees as deeply flawed excuses for modern meritocracies. This is why Gladwell spends the bulk of Outliers savaging what he sees as deeply flawed excuses for modern meritocracies. By his arguments, we shouldn’t spend our time reflexively praising the advantaged or condemning the handicapped; doing either presupposes we live in a society that provides people with equal opportunities, and Gladwell’s able to show – fairly convincing – that on a lot of levels, we really don’t. By his arguments, we shouldn’t spend our time reflexively praising the advantaged or condemning the handicapped; doing either presupposes we live in a society that provides people with equal opportunities, and Gladwell’s able to show – fairly convincing – that on a lot of levels, we really don’t.

10. When it comes to choice, both on a personal and societal level, we’re taught – and we teach – some very basic lessons. When it comes to choice, both on a personal and societal level, we’re taught – and we teach – some very basic lessons. For the most part, we teach our children that our choices determine our actions – that most things don’t “just happen,” or happen by mistake. For the most part, we teach our children that our choices determine our actions – that most things don’t “just happen,” or happen by mistake. After we make it clear to our kids that they can decide, and that their decisions determine what they do, we also make it clear that the things they do have consequences; the easy follow-up lesson, of course, is for them to consider the consequences of their actions before deciding to act. After we make it clear to our kids that they can decide, and that their decisions determine what they do, we also make it clear that the things they do have consequences; the easy follow-up lesson, of course, is for them to consider the consequences of their actions before deciding to act. Ultimately, we urge our children to make choices that improve their lives, that improve the lives of friends and family members, and that benefit our society and environment. Ultimately, we urge our children to make choices that improve their lives, that improve the lives of friends and family members, and that benefit our society and environment.

11. We teach these things because we’ve been taught they’re valuable. We teach these things because we’ve been taught they’re valuable. But you can see that these teachings rest on the assumption that we live in a universe in which choices matter, in which free will reigns supreme. But you can see that these teachings rest on the assumption that we live in a universe in which choices matter, in which free will reigns supreme. That doesn’t go for all things, as we act instinctually or automatically in many ways. That doesn’t go for all things, as we act instinctually or automatically in many ways. Obviously, you don’t have to choose to breathe, or to make your heart beat at a certain rate; those things are just unconscious responses to stimuli. Obviously, you don’t have to choose to breathe, or to make your heart beat at a certain rate; those things are just unconscious responses to stimuli.

12. Yet those silly examples perfectly illustrate why we think choices should have value: we don’t much like the idea that we’re pawns, that we’re carrying out actions like automatons. Yet those silly examples perfectly illustrate why we think choices should have value: we don’t much like the idea that we’re pawns, that we’re carrying out actions like automatons. Choice is what allows the “actor” (i.e., the person making the decision) to do something that exceeds/differs from an automatic response: we believe we’re superior to other animals because we can govern our instincts. Choice is what allows the “actor” (i.e., the person making the decision) to do something that exceeds/differs from an automatic response: we believe we’re superior to other animals because we can govern our instincts. But what if we’re working with incorrect assumptions? But what if we’re working with incorrect assumptions?

13. Universal causality (which I’ll abbreviate as “UC,” and also call “determinism”) questions those assumptions, as well as the idea of free will in general. Universal causality (which I’ll abbreviate as “UC,” and also call “determinism”) questions those assumptions, as well as the idea of free will in general. UC proponents (such as Albert Einstein) assert that every effect has a cause, which is in turn the effect of another cause. UC proponents (such as Albert Einstein) assert that every effect has a cause, which is in turn the effect of another cause. (One wonders what the original “cause” was!) (One wonders what the original “cause” was!) Because cause/effect sequences aren’t isolated, they bleed into one another continuously – hence the “universal” in “UC.” Because cause/effect sequences aren’t isolated, they bleed into one another continuously – hence the “universal” in “UC.”

14. Therefore, everything that occurs (including every “choice”) simply represents the inevitable after- effect of some seen/unseen cause; there’s no such thing as an “uncaused,” spontaneous event. Therefore, everything that occurs (including every “choice”) simply represents the inevitable after- effect of some seen/unseen cause; there’s no such thing as an “uncaused,” spontaneous event. If that’s the case, UC proponents continue, we actors aren’t making choices; we’re simply vessels for cause/effect delivery, the means by which the universe maintains itself. If that’s the case, UC proponents continue, we actors aren’t making choices; we’re simply vessels for cause/effect delivery, the means by which the universe maintains itself. We’re deceiving ourselves if we believe our “choices” allow us to do something other than we were “meant” to do via cause and effect. We’re deceiving ourselves if we believe our “choices” allow us to do something other than we were “meant” to do via cause and effect.

15. Most UC proponents base their arguments on the assumption that we live in a secular universe. Most UC proponents base their arguments on the assumption that we live in a secular universe. Another school of thought, however, questions the idea of free will using the “deity” argument. Another school of thought, however, questions the idea of free will using the “deity” argument. The deity in question is omnipotent and omniscient (all-powerful and all-seeing), which makes said deity infallible. The deity in question is omnipotent and omniscient (all-powerful and all-seeing), which makes said deity infallible. As an all-seeing being, it sees the future – and as an infallible being, it sees it unerringly. As an all-seeing being, it sees the future – and as an infallible being, it sees it unerringly. But since the deity can’t possibly be wrong about the future, we are only capable of what it already sees, and can’t possibly do otherwise; our concept of freedom of choice, in short, is a fiction that blinds us to the very real limits placed upon us. But since the deity can’t possibly be wrong about the future, we are only capable of what it already sees, and can’t possibly do otherwise; our concept of freedom of choice, in short, is a fiction that blinds us to the very real limits placed upon us.

16. The final broadside against free will comes in the form of the “logic” argument. The final broadside against free will comes in the form of the “logic” argument. It rests on the Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction Laws. It rests on the Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction Laws. The former states that absolutes exist for every proposition; either P or Not P is true, with no middle ground (hello, Baselines!). The former states that absolutes exist for every proposition; either P or Not P is true, with no middle ground (hello, Baselines!). The latter merely states that P and Not P can’t logically be true at the same time. The latter merely states that P and Not P can’t logically be true at the same time.

17. Let our proposition (P) be “Nicky, you’re going to fail your final tomorrow.” Let our proposition (P) be “Nicky, you’re going to fail your final tomorrow.” He either will or won’t; obviously, he can’t fail and pass simultaneously. He either will or won’t; obviously, he can’t fail and pass simultaneously. If P is a true statement, nothing that happens between now and tomorrow will stop him from failing; if P is untrue…well, nothing that happens between now and tomorrow will stop him from succeeding. If P is a true statement, nothing that happens between now and tomorrow will stop him from failing; if P is untrue…well, nothing that happens between now and tomorrow will stop him from succeeding.

18. Now, it looks like Nicky has two “options.” Now, it looks like Nicky has two “options.” Either he’ll pass, or he’ll fail. Either he’ll pass, or he’ll fail. However, we’ve already established that only one can be true. However, we’ve already established that only one can be true. Therefore, one of the “options” is necessarily false – a fake choice. Therefore, one of the “options” is necessarily false – a fake choice. And since only one of the options is really present, Nicky is powerless to choose the other. And since only one of the options is really present, Nicky is powerless to choose the other. In order to be free, you have to have choices – and Nicky doesn’t really have them. In order to be free, you have to have choices – and Nicky doesn’t really have them. Scary! Scary!

19. Obviously, people have plenty of arguments for the existence of free will as well. Obviously, people have plenty of arguments for the existence of free will as well. For the “deity” argument, we assume the being can perfectly see the things it controls. For the “deity” argument, we assume the being can perfectly see the things it controls. Because it knows its creations, it can accurately predict any possible choice one could make in response to a given situation. Because it knows its creations, it can accurately predict any possible choice one could make in response to a given situation. But that, the rejoinder goes, is exactly why it can still grant us free will. But that, the rejoinder goes, is exactly why it can still grant us free will.

20. Think of someone who’s really good at chess: he still sees the endgame, predicts the actions of the other player, and brings about the steps to make that endgame real…but doesn’t need to absolutely control the actions of the other player (i.e., reach over and move his pieces for him) in order to make it happen. Think of someone who’s really good at chess: he still sees the endgame, predicts the actions of the other player, and brings about the steps to make that endgame real…but doesn’t need to absolutely control the actions of the other player (i.e., reach over and move his pieces for him) in order to make it happen. Instead, he does his best to influence the conditions that affect his opponent’s choice…even knowing full well that his opponent could suddenly behave differently. Instead, he does his best to influence the conditions that affect his opponent’s choice…even knowing full well that his opponent could suddenly behave differently. As Martin Luther King, Jr. puts it, “we are responsible human beings, not blind automatons; persons, not puppets. By endowing us with freedom, God relinquished a measure of his own sovereignty and imposed certain limitations upon himself.” As Martin Luther King, Jr. puts it, “we are responsible human beings, not blind automatons; persons, not puppets. By endowing us with freedom, God relinquished a measure of his own sovereignty and imposed certain limitations upon himself.”

21. As for the “logic” scenario, let’s say that Nicky really, really, really doesn’t want to fail his final. As for the “logic” scenario, let’s say that Nicky really, really, really doesn’t want to fail his final. Let’s also say he’s “destined” to pass. (Whew.) Let’s also say he’s “destined” to pass. (Whew.) Does this really mean he has no choice? Does this really mean he has no choice? After all, there are different ways to pass: Nicky can study alone, study with friends, speak with his instructor (always a good idea), or even cheat (tsk tsk). After all, there are different ways to pass: Nicky can study alone, study with friends, speak with his instructor (always a good idea), or even cheat (tsk tsk). In any case, Nicky still has choices within his outcome! In any case, Nicky still has choices within his outcome! You know you’re going to eat – you can’t choose not to, at least not forever – but you don’t necessarily know what you’ll eat…and that decision could very well be yours after all! You know you’re going to eat – you can’t choose not to, at least not forever – but you don’t necessarily know what you’ll eat…and that decision could very well be yours after all! Is that, in the end, our true definition of free will? Is that, in the end, our true definition of free will?

22. Finally, the Determinists argued that your only free actions are ones you do without cause; since the Determinists believe in UC, everything has a cause – so, in short, you can’t do anything freely. Finally, the Determinists argued that your only free actions are ones you do without cause; since the Determinists believe in UC, everything has a cause – so, in short, you can’t do anything freely. Indeterminists also argue that your only free actions are ones you do without cause – “uncaused” free actions. Indeterminists also argue that your only free actions are ones you do without cause – “uncaused” free actions. However, they say, we’re obviously free, so why buy into any argument that tries to convince that what you know to be true isn’t – especially since UC isn’t really a scientific principle? However, they say, we’re obviously free, so why buy into any argument that tries to convince that what you know to be true isn’t – especially since UC isn’t really a scientific principle? (I’m going to be honest: I don’t like the incurious attitude of “Well, this is obvious, so I’m going to ignore everything to the contrary”…but your mileage may vary.) (I’m going to be honest: I don’t like the incurious attitude of “Well, this is obvious, so I’m going to ignore everything to the contrary”…but your mileage may vary.)

23. Compatibilists, who argue that free acts can be taken as long as their cause lies in the inner state of the person – a desire, an intention, etc. – are perhaps a better alternative to the unyielding arguments of the Determinists. Compatibilists, who argue that free acts can be taken as long as their cause lies in the inner state of the person – a desire, an intention, etc. – are perhaps a better alternative to the unyielding arguments of the Determinists. Since they assert that our inner choices/causes determine our will, and that we, rather than other forces, power the cause/effect mechanism, the Compatibilists can get free will to line up with UC quite nicely. Since they assert that our inner choices/causes determine our will, and that we, rather than other forces, power the cause/effect mechanism, the Compatibilists can get free will to line up with UC quite nicely.

24. This may look like one of those philosophical talks that turn boring because there’s no conclusion in sight. This may look like one of those philosophical talks that turn boring because there’s no conclusion in sight. But the discussion of whether we have control over our actions – over the course of our own lives – remains a pertinent one, both for Childhood’s End and for ourselves. But the discussion of whether we have control over our actions – over the course of our own lives – remains a pertinent one, both for Childhood’s End and for ourselves. The questions it raises force us to evaluate just how we wish to go through life – not simply whether we can decide what we do, but whether we live while doing so. The questions it raises force us to evaluate just how we wish to go through life – not simply whether we can decide what we do, but whether we live while doing so.

25. The right to choose may be valuable, but it also gives us a tremendous amount of responsibility. The right to choose may be valuable, but it also gives us a tremendous amount of responsibility. After all, it seems to me that true happiness can’t be obtained passively. After all, it seems to me that true happiness can’t be obtained passively. We owe it to ourselves, in other words, to actively place ourselves in positions where we can earn our happiness. We owe it to ourselves, in other words, to actively place ourselves in positions where we can earn our happiness.

26. We must build societies that don’t deny people the ability to make the choices that would bring them happiness for arbitrary reasons that we don’t even fully consider. We must build societies that don’t deny people the ability to make the choices that would bring them happiness for arbitrary reasons that we don’t even fully consider. And if we can choose between right and wrong, that means we can make moral judgments – and disagree over moral matters. And if we can choose between right and wrong, that means we can make moral judgments – and disagree over moral matters. You’ve matured to the point where the mere recognition of relative morality is no longer sufficient: you must learn to navigate it. You’ve matured to the point where the mere recognition of relative morality is no longer sufficient: you must learn to navigate it. The question, then, becomes one of how one can navigate it. The question, then, becomes one of how one can navigate it.