The Concept of Free Will

What separates homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom is free will. We have the ability to control our mental state and our actions. Other animals cannot do this. If a lion wants to mount a lioness, he just does it. We don't have to procreate. If someone insults us we can hit him or insult the person back or just ignore the remark. We can resist the impulse but it is hard to resist. It takes self-control.

Most democracies mention free will in their constitution. The US Constitution has the Bill of Rights for example. Such as the right to assemble, the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the freedom of and from religion to name a few. The Declaration of Independence has the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." clause in it.

The concept of free will is a fundamental building block to any legal system. Without the concept of free will the legal system breaks down. If a person does not understand right and wrong then you cannot prosecute her. That's why animals, children and insane people cannot be prosecuted. Free will also differentiates between a premeditated crime and a crime of passion or involuntary crime.

I think one thing that separates cults from your "healthy" religions is freewill. Cults tend to manage, control or even diminish their members freewill, so that the members do not question the cult leaders authority. They do this through various mind control techniques. "Healthy" religions on the other hand should cherish, protect, and celebrate free will. Freewill is after all a gift from God. He gave it to us to choose between good and evil and even to worship Him or not.

It's interesting how the concept of freewill is treated by different scholars. In his book The Pliant Animal, George Weinberg talks about the five assumptions of early psychology. The third assumption was that people make real choices and are not simply respondents to their environment--ie they freely choose their actions. The fourth assumption was people choices affect their outlook on life. The fifth assumption was if people choose enough of the right actions, a person can produce real change in their mental state. Then comes along Sigmund Freud. He basically said we are controlled by our unconscious instincts. The id instinct who tells you "I want that...". The superego says "You cannot have that." And finally the ego who mediates between the id and superego. Enter the behaviorists. They say we are basically robots who are controlled by environmental factors. Either controlled by classical conditioning or operant (sometimes called instrumental) conditioning. Eventually, free will came back around with the cognitive therapists. Their theories include Cognitive Dissonance, Consistency Theory, and Reactance Theory.

Finally, when you limit someone's choices or give the person false choices you disrupt the normal functioning of freewill. Freewill depends on good reliable information. The only way to get good reliable information is to research the item you are choosing, because the item may not be giving you reliable information. Some people say that too much choice is bad as having no or very little choice. Possibly. If you have too much things to choose from you will get confused and have to research each choice which would take time. But given the choice (no pun intended) between too much choice or too little choice I would choose too much choice even though it would require more work to decide, because in the end you'll come up with a good choice.