Paul Rée's The Illusion Of Free Will

In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.

The way you were raised as a child has a greater effect in your life than you

may think. As a child you are told to avoid certain things such as touching hot stoves and you are taught to think that certain things are acceptable and that certain things are not. These lessons stick with you for your entire life and most definitely affect the way you think and act as you grow up. Therefore, when you are presented with a certain situation, you act in the way in which you were taught is right as you were growing up. Rée uses the example of a man who committed murder. If the murderer had been taught to praise murder as a child or had grown up in a household where those kinds of things were praised upon, then no doubt the murderer would believe that those actions are acceptable. I agree with this argument. Under these circumstances it is obvious that murder would not be an issue with the man. Therefore, if he were to find himself in a situation where somebody made him angry or gave him a different motive, he would not have to think twice about murdering the individual. Why, though? Because as a child he was taught that murder is acceptable. This takes away his freedom of will. His will cannot possibly be free. He could say “I could have done otherwise” but that is not true. He is enforced to act in the way in which he was taught as a child because that comes first nature to him. Therefore, his will is not free.
It is often thought by many people that since they could have acted in a different way than they did in a certain situation, they have free will.

However, this is entirely wrong, despite contrary belief, and Rée argues this with a high degree of effectiveness. His first example looks at a vixen, a female fox, who is contemplating whether to sneak into the chicken coop to hunt for mice or to go back to her young. In the example, the vixen comes to the decision to sneak into the chicken coop rather than to return to the den. Rée claims that she made this choice because her act of will was the result of the domination of the sensation of hunger and a few other determining factors at that moment in time (Rée, p. 441). Then, say, after some reflection, the vixen states that she could have acted differently if she wanted to. However, what she does not notice is that the degree of hunger and the existence of all other factors at that time evade her. She could not actually have acted any differently at that time than she original had. Her action of will was predetermined. I completely agree with this argument. The only way in which the vixen could have acted differently would be if different sensations were dominant over the ones that caused her original actions. If other sensations were present, then the vixen would have acted differently. This clearly illustrates that free will does not actually exist. If free will existed, then the vixen could actually have acted differently no

matter what sensations and deciding factors were present at the time. However, the vixen could not act any differently, so therefore free will does not exist. In another example presented by Rée, we consider the actions of a man who has committed murder. The presence of multiple factors including jealousy and rage predetermine the actions of the man. If the degree of jealousy and rage is greater than the degree of fear of punishment and pity, then it is determined that the man would commit the murder. However, if the degree of fear of punishment and pity were greater than the degree of jealousy and rage, then the man would not succumb to the action of murder. Therefore, if the man states that he could have willed or acted differently, he is wrong. He could only act differently if he has free will, which he does not. These examples presented by Rée help prove that point.
Rée states the relationship between free will and the law of causality: “…To say that the will is not free means that it is subject to the law of causality” (Rée, p.

434). This is saying that the act of will cannot actually occur without something causing that action. If there is no cause, the will cannot act. This solidifies the idea that the will is not actually free. If the will were free, it would not be dependent on any cause or series of causes. Rée brings about a worthy argument involving a stone which aids in the illustration of the nonexistence of free will. In order for the stone to change position from where it sits at that very moment, whether it be by being thrown or by being kicked, its necessary cause must be present. As Rée states: “The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed” (Rée, p. 434). In this case, the cause would be the tossing of the stone, and the result would be the stone changing its position by flying through the air. This example proves that free will is nonexistent. The stone does not decide whether it is tossed or not. If the cause of the motion is present, then the will acts. However, if the cause of the motion is absent, then the stone would not move at all and would still sit at the same place. I agree with this argument. The motion of the stone is predetermined and there is nothing it can do about it. If the cause is present, the action will take place. Rée further argues that the will is subject to the law of causality and

therefore not free by using the actions of a donkey as an example. His example illustrates a donkey standing in between two identical piles of hay. Which action will the donkey undertake? According to Rée it has multiple options. It could either turn right or turn left, or do something completely different. However, according to the law of causality, the sufficient cause for one of the possible actions must be present in order for the will of the donkey to oblige. In supposing that the donkey turned to the pile of hay on the right, certain causes must have been present. But what is the cause for the donkey turning to the right? Rée states that the sensation of hunger and the awareness that the bundles of hay are beside him triggers the nerves to excite and therefore contract the muscles in its neck. This then makes the donkey think that it wants to turn to the right and eat (Rée, p. 435). However, the fact that it turned to the right rather than the left was predetermined. He could have turned to the left instead if the pile was a little bit closer or smelled more appetizing than the pile on the right. This is what makes the action of turning to the right predetermined. These two examples prove that the will is not actually free despite the contrary beliefs of many people. The law of causality, which can also be called determinism, exists and therefore the will cannot really be free.
As can be seen from the latter arguments, free will is just an illusion. The will cannot possibly be free if you were taught how to react in certain situations. Even though you believe that you could have acted differently than you did in a certain situation, you really couldn’t have. Also, the will is subject to the law of causality, which means that the will is not free. Each of these arguments support the fact that free will does not exist, and that it is really just a big misconception. Rée was correct in saying that free will is just an illusion.