"You didn't build that" because you don't have free will

Political junkie that I am, I've been fascinated by the response to President Obama's statement in a speech that successful Americans owe much of their success to societal factors -- education system, roads and bridges, Internet, etc. -- they didn't build themselves.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these sentiments. Obviously we live in a highly interconnected world. No one stands alone. No one succeeds alone. No one fails alone.

Even Mitt Romney seems to agree, since he's been trying to falsely claim that when Obama said "you didn't build that," he was referring to someone's business, not to the infrastructure examples Obama had just mentioned.

However, both the Romney and Obama campaigns are understandably ignoring the most interesting philosophical questions in this you didn't build that debate. Namely, does anyone ever do anything? Is there really a "you"? Does free will exist?

Recently George Ortega left a comment on a blog post I wrote about how ridiculous the notion of "compatibilism" is, which argues that free will and determinism are compatible somehow (I can't understand the tortured reasoning behind compatibilism).

Ortega, I learned from a link to his web site, is admirably, if quixotically, dedicated to promoting the scientifically solid understanding that free will is an illusion. For quite a few years he's been at this, not through his own free will, of course.

(My post is part of his "Free Will Refuted in the Blogs" page. Glad to help the cause, George.)

Check out Ortega's "President Obama Refutes Free WIll." I doubt that Obama would publicly admit to doing that in his you didn't build that speech, but Ortega correctly points toward the deeper philosophical currents that lie under the surface of Obama's remarks.

Ortega shared a link to Dylan Matthews' essay, "The Philosophy of 'You Didn't Build That'" on a Washington Post blog. Matthews discusses whether we deserve anything, including credit for building a successful business.

Political philosophers are sharply divided on these questions. Many do not like the idea that people “deserve” things at all. For one thing, most people think that to deserve something, a person must have done something to deserve it. That implies that there are actions that for which certain people are responsible. Seem obvious?

A lot of metaphysicians don’t think so. For one thing, that claim presupposes the existence of free will. Some philosophers are what is called “hard determinists,” who deny that anything that could be called free will exists. Others, called compatibilists or “soft determinists,” believe that it is both true that free will exists and that every action is determined.

They reason that free will exists if people can act according to their own motives without interference. Those motives are determined by factors outside those people, compatibilists argue, but they still have free will.

But if hard or soft determinism is true, how can people be responsible for their actions, and thus deserve things because of them?

Good question.

However, given the superficial sound bite character of modern presidential campaigns, issues of free will, responsibility, and deservedness aren't going to become a significant part of political discussions any time soon.

Rush Limbaugh did devote time on his program to trashing Matthews' essay, though. As would be expected, Limbaugh failed to understand the philosophical and neuroscientific issues involved in you didn't build that.

Kudos to George Ortega for putting so much effort into bringing free will (actually, the lack thereof) into broader public awareness. Browse his web site if the cosmos has determined that you're interested in doing so.

Comments

[DJ]

Just because he didn’t say it, don’t be so sure that Obama doesn’t consider lack of free will central to his core beliefs.

Remember, Obama’s childhood mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, often mentioned in ‘Dreams From My Father.’ It is well established that Frank Marshall Davis was a dues paying member of the Communist Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis

Marx and Engels’ ‘Communist Manifesto’ itself denies free will. It’s as if Obama lifted his “You didn’t build that” speech directly from the manifesto itself:

"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property… don't wrangle with us so long as you apply… the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc." And: "Law, morality and religion are… bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."

http://www.chuckbraman.com/Writing/WritingFilesPhilosophy/ComMan.html

Barry affectionately referred to Frank Marshall Davis as ‘Pop.’ It’s a damn shame for Barry that Pop isn’t still around today. I’m sure it would have been the realization of a dream for Pop to hear the words “You didn’t build that” coming from his little man in the White House.

Sincerely,
Big Oil

[tucson]

The influence of and association with communists and anti-american radicals is so extensive in Ob*ma's background that it is difficult to imagine that he would think otherwise. The evidence is in by this and by his statements, actions and appointees. What he envisions is not the America envisioned by the Founders.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Some of which Founders endorsed slavery of blacks and the wiping away of Indians.

Robert Paul Howard

[tucson]

RPH,
They did not put slavery and Indian abuse into the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Wrong.

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution as adopted forbade any law of Congress from forbidding the importation of slaves until 1808.

The "vision" of many "Founders" was so completely ~"natural"~ (as well as largely based on the {Christian] Bible) that many topics were not expressly dealt with: cf. "women's rights," the permissibility of drinking alcohol, racism, sexism, criminality of homosexual acts. Many reactionaries would like to go back to that very unjust style of culture. Others do not agree.

Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were/are humanly devised documents, not "holy scripture" (as contrary to the opinion of Glenn Beck et al.). It is not "anti-American" to seek for higher standards of justice than the "Founders" of the US envisioned.

But, then, some say it's all just "mind stuff."

Robert Paul Howard

[tucson]

Hmmm, I was wrong. That's mind stuff for you. But they did get rid of the slavery thing pretty quickly.

Anyway, the general idea of the founders was "leave me alone". Ob*ma does not want to leave me alone.

[tucson]

Yep, wrong. But they did get rid of the slavery thing rather quickly.

Anyway, the founders did not envision a massive govt. apparatus as does Ob*ma. Granted, the world is much more complex these days with so many ways people can screw each other over.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Often using traditional concepts/values as if they were somehow "Godly."

Robert Paul Howard

[tucson]

but maybe not by respecting them.

[Chandler Klebs]

Hello. I'm Chandler Klebs. George Ortega made be the new administrator of his website and so I've been visiting the links. Obviously, as you know, this is one of them.

Also I want to let you know that we've started a new podcast called Free Will, Science, and Religion. George, me, and a bunch of other people regularly record episodes where we talk about the implications of not having free will.