I don’t remember appreciating the absurdity of free will to quite such an extent as in the following way before:
As a counter to “Determinism”, surely “free” will is by definition “independent” of any causal factors that would otherwise determine it and make it un-free? Having no relation to any such factors as previous experiences, current mood, genetics and physical make-up - all of which would otherwise determine every choice - one’s will would necessarily result in random choices if it were “free”. This removes all control from one’s choices and thus decisions can no longer be thought of as “willed” except by chance.
So you can either have “free” OR “will” - not both.
If you think this dilemma can be avoided by stating the definition of free will more mildly e.g. one is free to choose out of any number of options and could just as easily have chosen otherwise, the ultimate choice still either relies on the same factors as I stated before (previous experiences, current mood, genetics and physical make-up) to determine one’s choice, or the choice isn’t dependent on anything and is in just the same way random and not willed.
The notion of “freedom” thus runs into serious problems in a causal universe, or at least in a universe where humans can only understand and speak of it with any meaning in terms of causation. Any mention of intrinsic uncertainty at the quantum level adds nothing to the case for free will since one is unconscious of the detail going on at this level and as such it isn’t part of one’s conscious willing, and it is still probabilistic and therefore still determined by these probabilities rather than one’s will anyway.
One might feel like they could have easily chosen otherwise - but that just means it was a close call to pick the choice that was determined to be more preferable (and therefore still not “free” and still entirely determined). Even if one thinks they are tricking themselves and picking a less preferable choice on purpose or by accident, the choice to be defiant or frivolous, or the accidental lack of care is still determined. Just because our consciousness is only an isolated segment of the entire vast chain of causation that is existence (unless we apply such an evaluation as I am describing), that does not free the start of the process of choosing from what came before it. But we do have the cognitive bias towards the feeling of agency to help us believe we can: where one justifies the choice to oneself after it has been chosen but before one is conscious of choosing it - to avoid cognitive dissonance. I hear that neuro-scientific experiment does in fact confirm that choices are made before one becomes conscious of them, and any “seemingly” free influence of the outcome.
And the implications of this obviously spill over into the political realm.
How is a free society possible if free will is an oxymoron? Going back to the notion of will “feeling” free, it does seem like some societies have more obvious determining factors than others, but that does not actually make them more free it just makes them more acceptable to the part of the human psyche that prefers to feel like it is in control and not being controlled. In a lawless society, people’s choices can still affect one another even at the most subtle of levels - and even if they didn’t, environmental forces will. And in a “free” market, there are still market “forces”. They are just more mysterious because the determining factors are de-centralised and private i.e. complex and hidden. Libertarians step in to argue against government forces “artificially” distorting the market, when such a market force is merely the more conspicuous equivalent to a corporation independently developing enough of a competitive advantage to corner the market, or even individual people earning so much money that they gain this level of market influence, which might concern the left side of the political spectrum more than Libertarians but it’s still the same thing. Classical liberals might argue in favour of a self-regulating market that naturally prevents any party from gaining enough influence, but phenomena such as the Pareto distribution prevents that in theory even if you aren’t convinced by the more free markets of the world in practice - and if still wouldn’t be “free”, just determined by de-centralised forces.
So the ideal must therefore either be adjusted from “freedom” to “the feeling of freedom”, or it must be accepted that freedom does not exist if we are to head towards improved integrity and intellectual honestly as a society. Obviously issues arise with the fact that knowledge of how to influence people without their conscious awareness is ever-increasing, allowing the appearance of freedom to actually be intentionally determined by people who know how to do this, and are able - I do not think this is a solution. But it’s either trusting moral intentions towards “feelings of freedom” (ha), embracing our lack of freedom, or we continue with the general ignorance that allows the worship of illusions such as freedom, and we continue the farce of chasing populist scapegoats and other political red herrings, which is getting us nowhere.
A further can of worms is of course ethics, where notions of morality, blame and guilt must be completely re-thought, and fundamental religious notions such as God’s judgment over the free choices of people no longer make any sense whatsoever… but I’ll leave it at that for now.