theconversation

Take a second to answer these questions. Do you believe that free will exists? What does the idea of free will mean to you? People have been contemplating these questions for over 2000 years. The idea of free will is as old as the Christian religion, at least. The first notions of free will are attributed to either Aristotle (4th century BCE) or Epictetus (1st century CE). Aristotle’s musings on free will were always tied into his discussions of morality and personal responsibility. These are conversations to debate even today, but first let us examine what Christianity and Epictetus has to say about free will. 

A principle Christian teaching is that God gave us free will, but until people give themselves over to God, this human will is perverted and used for sin. So while humans have free will, we often make immoral or “wrong” decisions. For example, when people choose not to serve God, they have that choice because God gave them it. While these ideas may not be the first ever documented stance that establishes the existence of free will, these teachings persevere into today, especially in religious communities and schools. Youth groups today still operate under this philosophy. From a sense of scripture free will can be understood from a quote that states, “you say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is good for you. You say, ‘I am allowed to do anything’—but not everything is beneficial,” (1 Corinthians 10:23). 

This reiterates the church’s definition of free will as something that is inherently human, and as the part of human nature that opens up the possibility for evil in all of us. We cherish it and freedom is something that this country and most of the world values, but it also means that it is our responsibility to enact a set of morals for the people to follow. 

This is where rhetorical theories come into play; the morality that free will presents a need for. We all know the arguments: ethos, logos, and pathos presented by Aristotle. Ethos especially is a rhetorical argument based on character and trustworthiness of an author. Today when researching, people have certain methods to determine credibility of their sources. This could involve the status of a work being peer reviewed or not, where and when it was published, and by who. The author’s character may be involved as well. Take for instance cancel culture today in the fast-evolving realm of social media. A specific example of youtube creator Onision fits this discussion perfectly (though there are many other instances to explain how free will fits into ethos arguments). Onision, or Greg Daniel, started making youtube videos in 2006 when the platform was still very new. Some of his more famous videos include the “I’m a Banana” music video as well as content parodying the hit anime “Death Note”. His videos are for the most part unproblematic, but his character was put into question after an ex girlfriend of his, Shiloh, and multiple other young women came forward claiming that they were groomed and abused by him. His popularity and good name was demolished over the course of a few short months as it was determined that these women were not lying and had extensive proof of their experiences. Nowadays Onision is a name usually expressed with disgust or fear and he is a content creator without support. The state of his character has made Onision untrustworthy and uncredible in the eyes of most; any argument he presents is ignored, and Youtube has even demonetized his accounts. The ramifications of an unappealing character for influencers are clear, but where free will comes in is in the public’s views on which behaviors were moral or immoral. Onision’s abusive relationship with Shiloh especially was documented on his Youtube channel. His viewers saw certain instances of abuse that he himself posted for everyone to see, but it was not seen as immoral or wrong back then. These videos were seen as funny. I will not describe the abuse with too much detail but one such video was taken of Shiloh having a seizure and instead of helping her or calling for medical help, Onision filmed and posted the episode for his channel as a joke. It was not for years later that people looked back on this and condemned Onision’s actions in this video.

Now this is one specific example of retrograde moral judgment on a large social scale, but similar instances can be seen around other youtubers with Shane Dawson’s blackface video as well as with Jeffrey Starr’s racist comments. All of this is to say that societal trends demonstrate morality as a group consciousness that is instagnant. While morality may not be ambiguous, it is ever changing. This brings us finally to the discussion of specific rhetorical theories. 

When people think of moralistic rhetoric, which is what free will is all about, Immanuel Kant comes to mind. Kant is famous for what is known as Kantian Ethics. This is a deontological moral theory that states determining whether an action is moral or immoral depends not on the consequences of said action but on whether or not the action fulfilled a person’s duty. This is a view towards morality that eliminates the problems of dealing with motives, religious rules/laws, or consequences. Someone may commit an act with horrible consequences out of a benevolent motivation (a father or mother stealing large amounts of money when their child needs expensive treatments for a deadly illness, for example). Laws in place tell us that stealing is wrong, but wanting to protect your child is accepted as a natural and good sentiment. Kant would argue that since it is a parent’s duty to care for their child, if the act of stealing these sums of money led to the survival of their child, then it was a moral act. Kant also argues that we as people operate under the Categorical Imperative, which is a universal set of moral principles. Free will as defined by Kant’s theories is the will that coincides with the Categorical Imperative. 

Whether a person’s understanding of free will is determined and cultivated through religious ideas or rhetorical theories, the implications of free will touch on the issue of morality. This makes free will a moral issue itself. Furthermore if free will is so intertwined with our sense of human morality, the  it follows that the laws in place and systems of power in human society are concerned with defining and understanding free will as well. These systems of power depend on it.