Free will, is it really that important?

In behavioral terms, Antecedent stimuli (A) always lead to a Behavior (B) which always results in a Consequence(C) (A-B-C). According to philosophers', Free will is termed as the process between A and B. I had read the phrase that a person had the will to choose but not the will to will. It means that a person is capable of making a choice. However the choices available, the situations he found himself in, and also the pressure to make a decision is outside of his control. The choices presented to us during decision making, is determined by cultural, situational context, as well as the intellectual capabilities of the individual. If we truly have the will to choose, we would be paralysed by the infinite amount of choice alternatives. Obviously, we cannot think of all the choices possible. The choices available to us is bounded by the characteristic of the setting, who is involved, and our mental capabilities. Thus, in a way, our choices and the behavior we eventually made are all predetermined. I believe that this is indeed the case.

Free will has been held as the foundation of our society. For example, in Economics model, it is viewed that people will always choose the options that offered them the highest payout. In politics, democracy is held as the most successful model because it assumed that people of the country will choose the best candidate. Free will has been misconceptualised as the ability of each individuals to think for themselves, coming up with rational decisions, and achieving rational outcomes. This is obviously not the case. Evidence has showed that people do not always make rational decision. Human decisions are often blinded by their decisional bias (whether they are motivated to seek short-term rewards or long-term rewards). This post addressed the need of free will, and whether it deserved the high importance it is given now. All sort of human interaction is guided by the idea of free will. The ideas that everyone has a mind of their own, they have the right to voice their opinion, and the need to treat everybody's view with importance, all rests on the assumption that free will is important. Now is the part of controversial. I believed free will is only important if u are appealing to the emotional aspects of an individual. Free will is not important when you are coming up with a solution to solve the problems of the society.

When coming up with solutions for society, allowing everyone to voice their opinion and taking their opinion into account is ineffective and even debilitating to the decision process. Free will assumed everyone's view is important. Even views from individuals who are highly suggestible, self-interest motivated, gullible and ignorant, irrational. I do not think all individuals' opinion is important in decision involving social changes. I believed these decision should be done by people who are highly intelligent, expert in that field, not motivated by self-interest, and no distraction from other people. It is believed that the choices they can think of are more divergent and more relevant. The ideal scenario is the use of individuals who are also devoid of human emotions.

Fear, happiness, satisfaction, contentment are all emotions that make free will such an importance issue. The idea that our free will is unimportant (or irrelevant) is distressing. Lack of power in influencing decision causes fear. In order to feel good about themselves, people tries to get their ideas accepted by other people through public advocation and advertising, regardless whether it is correct or not. Also, Satisfaction and contentment emerged when status quo is maintained.

Free will obstuct the path to freedom. True freedom is the capability in accepting revolutionary change. Free will, on the other hand, obstruct this process by advocating conformity. This conception seems counter-intuitive but it is not. Take it this way, when we allow free will to guide our decision making process, we are letting everyone do what they want. We are assuming that they will make the best decision. The question is what will it be based on? Self-interest? Contentment with the status quo? Like i say before, free will is important only when you are trying to appeal to one's emotional feeling. Emotions is essential for our wellbeing. People wants to feel happy, and wants to avoid discomfort. But the question is whether emotions is relevant in decision-making? Especially making decision involving social issues, like reducing energy usage, recycling.

I was motivated to write this issue after reading a book about climate changes. Alot of solution is available to relieve global warming. But few has being undertaken. Those that were undertaken are those that are the easist to achieve, and also less change is needed (thus, maintaining status quo). Free will makes us respect the view of industries (those that cause the result in the first place), economist (energy saving decline economy growth), and politician. Are they relevant? Are the view of non-experts in the field (e.g., normal citizens) relevant? Do non-experts really know what they should look out for? Should we include politician in the decision-making process? I understand there is a probability of group-think, but my point is that group- decision should be governed by rational process, and not emotional. When there is solution, we act. and not be deterred by some irrelevant free will and emotions.

I am just venting my frustration and really, there is no way we can reach the ideal scenario. No one is free from the grasp of emotions, even the intelligent (assuming there is such thing as an intelligent). A-B-C. No one is ever free from the A. Evidently, this post is appealing to my emotional side.