The “ability” to be a loose cannon
In my last post, I discussed the ability to have chosen otherwise than you in fact chose. Here I question whether “ability” is even the right word for it and, if so, whether it’s an ability anyone ought to want.
Start by assuming determinism and the relevant physics. It follows that (almost certainly) you couldn’t have chosen otherwise than you did. Now imagine inserting, as incompatibilists typically require, an indeterministic event right before you choose. Does that insertion give you an ability that you lack in the deterministic case? I say no, because the indeterministic event isn’t under your control. It’s a spasm, not an action. Analogy: If I have the normal ability to close my right eye, and I then also acquire a tic that closes my eye randomly, I don’t thereby become more able to close it than I was before.
Even if indeterminism gives you an ability that determinism denies you, it’s an ability no one should want. Consider: This morning I chose to give my neighbor a friendly greeting. Why? Because, among other things, I was raised that way, I try to be friendly, and I want to stay on good terms with my neighbors. Determinism says that those factors belong to conditions that necessitated my greeting my neighbor exactly as I did. If you insert indeterminism right before I choose, you break the connection between those conditions and my choice. In that case, despite my desire to give a friendly greeting, I might have screamed obscenities at my neighbor instead, an outburst that I couldn’t possibly explain. Such an “ability” would make me a loose cannon. Who would want it?
