Book Review: Determined, A Science of Life Without Free Will, by Robert Sapolsky
Neuroscientist and primatologist, Robert Sapolsky, makes the case that “we are nothing more or less than the sum of that which we could not control—our biology, our environments, their interactions.” He tells a story that suggests that if although this concept may be widely accepted, the implications are not. “Imagine a university graduation ceremony…the happiness, the pride. The families whose sacrifices now all seem worth it…And then you notice someone…way in the back, the person who is part of the grounds crew, collecting the garbage.” If by some luck it was the person collecting garbage who started life with the graduate’s genes and their prenatal and childhood needs were well met (instead of experiencing hunger, homelessness, etc.) that person would be in a graduation robe. Sapolsky suggests we know that. “Nevertheless, we rarely reflect on that sort of fact; we congratulate the graduate on all she’s accomplished and move out of the way of the garbage guy without glancing at him.” If we’re nothing more than a product of our genes and environment, praising or blaming someone for their choices makes no sense.
Robert (his informal style and honest self-revelation makes you feel like calling him by his first name) says that his book “has a goal—to get people to think differently about moral responsibility, blame and praise, and the notion about our being free agents…and most of all to change fundamental aspects of how we behave.” As good a storyteller as ever (his books include A Primate’s Memoir; Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers; and Behave) Robert tells the tales of how society transformed its moralistic views of people with epilepsy and schizophrenia. The former used to be considered possessed by demons and the latter a product of “schizophrenogenic” mothers (rigid, rejecting, domineering, etc.) It was science that debunked the ignorance, and people like Eleanor Owen, mother of a person with schizophrenia, whose advocacy efforts helped bring about things like insurance coverage for schizophrenia. Robert reflects on a conversation with her in her 100th year of life. “Despite the shame and guilt heaped on people like her by ideologues preaching a judgmental pseudo-religion free of facts, she still says, ‘But there were no villains.’” It is Eleanor Owen’s understanding attitude that exemplifies Robert’s goal: to provide the scientific basis for ridding ourselves of judgmental thinking.
Robert extends this understanding to criminals. “Terrible people are produced by terrible circumstances.” He discusses alternatives to retribution that head in the direction of rehabilitation: Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and Restorative Justice. He supports “quarantining” of criminals if the public needs to be protected from them until they can be rehabilitated.
Determined can be read as a frontal assault on the theory that humans have free will. Robert estimates that most people along with 90% of philosophers disagree with his conclusion. However, in theoretical arguments about free will there can be misunderstandings at work. Robert is not saying that people don’t have choices, just that their choice results from their genes and environment. He’s not saying that people can’t change. He wrote the book to change how people think about responsibility, praise and blame.
However much Robert believes that “I’m on the fringe here”, the ethics of Robert’s thesis puts him in good company. I think of Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish whose parenting books offered alternatives to praise and blame so that children would not become dependent on others’ approval or vulnerable to their disapproval. There’s Marshall Rosenberg, author of Nonviolent Communication, who considered “deserve” to be “the most dangerous word in the language”, as it justifies inflicting suffering on others (punishment) and condones debilitating inequality. Robert’s got company with Michael Sandel, known as a “rock star” philosopher because of the tens of millions of people around the world who viewed his Justice course at Harvard Law School. Sandel explains the devotion to meritocracy in his book, The Tyranny of Merit, “The successful…rise thanks to their own effort and hard work—their success reflects their superior virtue. The rich are rich because they are more deserving than the poor…This way of thinking sanctifies winners and losers.”
Robert’s got company in the Judeo-Christian teaching (if not always practiced) that forgiveness of anti-social behavior comes from the realization that the behavior results from ignorance, not willful choice of evil. “The Lord said, ‘Should I not have compassion on Ninevah, the great city of more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand?’” (Jonah) “Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” (Jesus on the cross).
There’s a 2000 year old debate within Christianity that parallels the current one between philosophers and scientists like Sapolsky: free will versus predestination. Yet there is now agreement between Protestants and Catholics on a related issue: it is not someone’s free will that earns them salvation. Salvation comes by the gift of divine grace, not as something merited or deserved. The gratitude for an amazing unmerited grace is immortalized in the words of slave trader turned abolitionist, John Newton, “I once was lost. But now I’m found.”
It would be a shame if Determined is dismissed out of hand because of a theoretical attachment to free will. In our world and in our homes, what could be more helpful than a reason to transform judgmental thinking into understanding?
