If you look at the title of my book “Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind” (now on both Kindle and Paperback) you’ll recognize two distinct parts. The first part addresses specifically free will. It denotes it as an “illusion”, and it denotes it as one that can be “broken”. The next part talks about “bettering humankind”. But what does it mean to say something is “better”, or there is a “betterment”, or that humankind is “better off”?
Notice the book does not say “for the betterment of me” or “for the betterment of you”. I’m addressing humankind in a more general sense, and though it will most likely be better for me and you for various reasons, this is important. What is better for a general population may not be what is better for every single individual within that population. I might say that it is better for the people of a given society to stop serial killers, but for the serial killer (who is a single person within that society) – it probably wouldn’t be “better”.
Preference is often assumed in the word “better”. For me, chocolate icecream is better than vanilla icecream; for another, vanilla would be better. Some might say classical music is better than rock and roll, or vice-versa.
This isn’t the only way to use “better”. Take, for example, a car that uses less fuel per mile (or kilometer) than another car. We would say that the car has “better” fuel efficiency (or economy) than the other. In other words, when looking at which car is more fuel efficient, one is better than the other. But lets suppose I’m looking for a car with poor fuel efficiency so that I can test other things out regarding cars with poor efficiency. For me, the car with the “better” fuel efficiency is not better to obtain. That, however, does not mean that the car with better fuel efficiency does not have better fuel efficiency, it just means that the obtainment of such a car is not better for me in the instance that I am purposely looking for a fuel inefficient car for some other reason.
The same can hold for logic. Something may be more logical (It could be more valid and sound) than some other claim. We could say that the logical reasoning is “better”, and that would indeed be the case. But for the person who cares not of having more logical reasoning, the obtainment of such logical reasoning does not necessarily mean it’s better for them. If, for example, they could care less about what is true or most likely true, sometimes the truth just isn’t better (for them). But it still holds that it would be better for the obtainment of what is true (or most likely true) than some other methodology such as guessing.
So let’s take this to a much larger example. Imagine, if you will, a world without conflict and war (I say “imagine” because this is obviously not the world we live in). A world of peace, equality, and comfort for almost all people. A world without any extreme suffering. Let’s call this World A.
Now imagine a different world, a world of conflict and hate. A world of horrid wars, extreme inequality, and discomfort to almost everyone. A world where unnecessary suffering of the worst sort is rampant. World B.
For me, on a personal level, World A would be “better” than World B.
But what of the psychopath who desires the crazy world of suffering? To that person, as long as they don’t bare the brunt of the suffering, World B could be “better”.
Even though we both hold these differing individual “preferences”, when talking about humankind in general, we can say that one of these would be better. Just as, in the car example, we could say that the fuel efficient cars are better for most people. It will cost them less money, and be less environmentally pollutive. Likewise, I’d suggest there are various reasons that World A would be better than World B, when addressing a general population.
And even if the psychopath wants World B, and even though for the psychopath that world may be better, it still would not be better for humankind in general.
My proposal is simple. Understanding that there is no free will is better for humankind than not understanding it. And this betterment is due to the progression of our understandings regarding equality, regarding how we treat others, and regarding our own psychological response. It’s better for the future world out there that will hopefully come about due to this understanding (which I go over in depth in the book).
If the understanding regarding our lack of free will fails, I’m proposing the world will not be a “better” place, but rather a much worse one. That’s not to say, in that case, that the better place “could have” happened.
'Trick Slattery
Latest posts by 'Trick Slattery (see all)
- Semantic Shift Day, August 31 – REMINDER! Mark your calendar! - August 1, 2020
- Debunking Dennettian Diatribe - May 2, 2018
- Compatibilism: A Parable (comic) - December 7, 2017
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.