Free will is often understood as the ability to choose between different possible actions without impediment. Generally, we consider everyone to possess free will, except in extraordinary situations like being under hypnosis or suffering from a mental illness. However, I argue that we don’t actually have free will, and that it doesn’t really matter because free will isn’t a concept in Buddhism.
Free will holds immense importance in our society. Moral philosophers, religious leaders, and politicians see it as fundamental to personal morality and societal progress. Immanuel Kant, for instance, believed that free will and moral laws are interconnected, and that morality follows from the presupposition of free will. Similarly, Barack Obama mentioned in “The Audacity of Hope” that American values are deeply rooted in an optimistic view of life and faith in free will.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is determinism, which suggests that our actions are entirely conditioned, leading us to believe we’re responsible for decisions even if we’re not. Determinism can be uncomfortable because it implies that without free will, we’re like robots operating on pre-set instructions, incapable of true responsibility.
But here’s the twist: the concept of free will doesn’t align with reality. Neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments where subjects performed actions like pressing a button whenever they chose to. His findings showed that brain activity initiating the action occurred almost three-tenths of a second before participants became aware of their decision to act. This challenges the notion of free will because the experience of choosing seemed to be triggered unconsciously.
A more recent study using advanced MRI technology further complicates the picture. In this experiment, participants were asked to use either their right or left hand for a task. The scientists could predict the decision five to six seconds before the action occurred, thanks to preceding brain activity. Imagine thinking you’re deciding when in reality, it’s as if a hidden force is making the choice for you.
From a conventional perspective, this undermines the idea of conscious choice, which is seen as critical for morality. Free will is thought to be a product of Christian thought, where God evaluates our choices and actions. According to this model, not having free will would seem capricious and unjust.
Buddhism, however, doesn’t engage with the concept of free will. It emphasizes conditionality: everything arises based on preceding conditions. Choices are thus constrained by these conditions, meaning our “will” can never be completely free. The Buddhist approach focuses on ethical choices to reduce suffering and increase happiness. Even though we can make choices, these choices are from a limited set influenced by many factors.
Mindfulness plays a critical role in making choices. It enables us to step back, recognize our emotional states, and see the options available. More mindfulness means more room to make ethical decisions that lead to well-being. Continuously making positive choices changes our brain pathways, fostering long-term improvements in our behavior. This is essentially what karma refers to—actions that shape who we are over time.
While Libet’s findings suggest our conscious choices are illusions, Buddhism accepts that decisions arise unconsciously. What’s crucial is that the decisions we make promote long-term happiness and widen our ability to make wise choices.
To sum up, Buddhism doesn’t worry about whether choices are made unconsciously or if we have a “self” making them. Instead, it focuses on making choices that reduce suffering and promote happiness, even if those decisions aren’t consciously initiated. As we practice mindfulness, we become better at making these beneficial choices, gradually increasing our freedom and happiness.