Editorial: The Biology of Freedom

PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE Volume VII · Number 2 · Winter 1964 EDITORIAL: THE BIOLOGY OF FREEDOM As Isee it, ours is not an age ofscience. Men are still driven bygreed andconfused byguile, rather thanguided by reason basedon ourexpanding knowledge____ Whetherscience andthe scientific method, whether understanding, honesty, reason, andjustice can contrive survival values equal, ifnot superior, to the blindforces of nature which shaped man's past is as yet in the laps ofthegods. Still, we can not deny thepossibility, and we will nurse the hope that the hairy ape who somehow lost his tail, grew a brain worth having, built speech and song out ofa hiss and a roar, and stepped out ofthe cave to explore and master the universe may some day conquer his own irrational and myopic behavior towards his kin.—A.J. Carlson. Study ofthe factors affecting the behavior ofman can lead to the doctrine ofdeterminism and the assumption that no action is free ofantecedent and concomitant events. The supposed conflict between the concept of "freedom of the will" and determinism has never been fully resolved. But many ofus believe that freedom and determinism are not mutually exclusive; that man, the embodiment ofinnate drives and past experiences—all ofthe internal and external past and present causes—does freely choose and determine much ofhis behavior. This is one ofthe great mysteries ofthe mind: howdoesthe marvelously complex system ofnerves generate awareness and consciously scan memory stores, sensory patterns, reflect on possible choices, and then make a decision? We know many physical and biological limitations on freedom. Man is not free to live without oxygen, water, and food. He cannotjump as much as eight feet into the air or lift a house or become young after once being old. Freedom is extended by the use of tools and knowledge, and this is what much ofcivilization is about. Freedoms are limited by the nature ofinborndrives, likes, and dislikes. We are likelyto seek the sweet and reject the bitter. Much ofour behavior is related to the pleasure-pain principle. Attitudes and choices are shaped by learned behavior. The burned child is no longer free to seek the fire. Many human likes and dislikes are based on learning which can be described in terms of Pavlovian conditioning. Others are more subtle: "I do not love thee, Dr. Fell / The reason why I cannot tell." Another general limitation on personal freedoms and rights arises out of conflict of choices by the individual with the choices of other individuals and groups. There is an axiom that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and we can examine the extent to which an action ofone body is transmitted to that ofall others. A par141 tide is not only attracted to a planet or sun within its gravitational field, but the particle exerts a gravitational effect ofits own upon the larger body. The use ofair, water, and foods by the individual affects their use by others, however slightly. Most human aas have impact on other individuals, however slight. Conflicts ofchoices and rights become apparent and important when groups ofindividuals foul the air, water, soil, and shelter and when there is competition for space and material goods. Out ofthis conflict ofwants and professed rights come laws, ethics, and customs which are useful in avoiding conflicts but which are constantly being revised in accord with the conventional wisdom of the times. One ofthe aims ofeducation is to aid individuals and groups to achieve optimal freedom with minimal conflict. Moral status depends in part upon knowledge ofrelevant facts and courses between which we may choose. At the political level, and even at the academic level, the ordinary views offreedom fail to recognize, first, how choice and action are determined by inborn and acquired nature and, second, how rights come into conflict. On one hand, the criminal and the incompetent are likely to be held not responsible for their actions; they are regarded as products ofenvironment. The same individuals who embrace this view may look without insight into the origins ofgroup bias— how an individual who has some inherent fear ofthe unfamiliar, some inherent tendency toward homogamy, and who acquires a dislike on the basis of unpleasant experiences...