If we don't have free will, there will be chaos

The argument

If free will is exposed as a convenient illusion, the whole sense of moral responsibility that underpins the ethical, legal and, for some, religious frameworks of our society would disappear. Personal responsibility disappears and we become cogs in a machine. It would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” Both ethics and law are underpinned by the belief in people’s freedom to act or not to act in a certain way which makes them responsible for what they do. Usually, only actions that occur as a result of free will are seen as deserving credit or blame. Free will is attributed to all human beings as a default, with exceptions such as people suffering from mental illness and people on psychotropic substances. Without free will, individuals can’t be held responsible for their actions. According to a long-standing philosophical tradition, if someone was not “free” when they did something, they cannot be held responsible for their deed. Presently, lack of capacity - not having had free will at the time of a crime - is a criminal defence. If no one had free will, nothing would ever be anyone's fault. Free will provides a framework for striving to live a moral life. God allowed humanity free will, so it is individuals who misuse the freedom and they, rather than God, who are the source of evil in the world. Belief in an afterlife in which a just God rewards and punishes us according to our right or wrong use of free will was key to motivating us to be moral. Studies have examined whether people will act differently if they believe they do not have free will. Vohs and Schooler found that if a group were primed to see free will as illusory, they were more likely to cheat in exams and, when given an opportunity to steal, those whose belief in free will had been undermined were more likely to do so. It seems that when people stop believing they are free they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy and give in to their baser instincts. It is important to carry on believing we have free will, whether we do or not.

Context

Denying free will provides the ultimate excuse to behave as one likes.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the argument concerns the consequences of disbelieving in free will, not whether free will exists, so even if losing the belief caused social harm, that would not make free will real — a comforting or useful belief can still be false. They add that compatibilists hold moral responsibility, law and ethics can be rebuilt on grounds such as deterrence, character and the capacity to respond to reasons, which do not require libertarian free will, so denying it need not produce chaos. And the priming studies cited are contested, with weak or failed replications, so the empirical claim that disbelief reliably causes immorality is shaky.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That responsibility and law presuppose free will shows the belief is socially useful, not that free will exists; usefulness does not establish truth. [Rejecting P2] Compatibilists argue responsibility, ethics and law can be grounded in deterrence, character and reasons-responsiveness without libertarian free will, so its denial need not collapse them. [Rejecting P3] The priming studies linking disbelief to cheating are contested and have faced failed replications, so they do not reliably show chaos would follow.