Thoughts on Self-Determination

Some may say that the question on this concept does not arise at all. Are we not inherently self-determined, at least inside ourselves? Is this not guaranteed by our free will? It would seem so; we feel that our will belongs only to ourselves. We are the only ones who can control it. Should we trust this feeling?

Germany's "Duden" dictionary (www.duden.de, checked on 2019 08 19) defines "self-determined" as "independent", "on one's own responsibility" and "according to one's own will", and "self-determination" as "independence of the individual from any kind of external domination", "independence of the individual from their own impulses, desires etc.", and "independence of a people from other states and independence at the national level".

As already suggested by the dictionary, this is neither about the instinct-driven freedom of a bird or a baby nor about the self-centered behavior of an egoist or the unbridled power of a despot.

When we speak about self-determination, we can mean by it that we ourselves and not some external beings determine our intentions and actions. Depending on the cultural and the personal environment, everyone is granted room for manoeuver but also faces limitations. We need a social environment in which education and culture play a key role in order to mature. An upbringing that is too authoritarian or too anti-authoritarian can hinder this development. And these influences can contribute to our self-discovery or lead to manipulation and alienation. 

How can we assess this influence?  In my view, it is necessary to observe the "principles of reason" and to impart truth.

Thus self-determination has to do both with balanced social behavior and the acknowlegement of reasons, understanding of dependencies, interconnectedness and correlations, knowledge of a large number of possible alternatives for action and their consequences or, generally, with the recongnition of the principles of reason and well-approximated knowledge of reality. Reality and the principles of reason comprise the whole reach of man and hence all life, especially man and human culture, in addition to nature. Man can find out a lot through observation; much knowledge is transmitted through traditions and education, but not all of it is right or reasonable. The sciences can contribute to the verification and/or deepening of this knowledge.

As further detailed in the Basic Definitions in the Annex, the assumption is that truth and/or approximations to truth do exist from a scientific perspective, and that principles of reason in the sense of a universal ethic may exist. Relativism in the sense that "everything is true and/or right and nothing is wrong" is rejected.

With global coexistence in mind, it is assumed that man, being endowed with reason, is able to steadily approach these principles of reason.

A dogmatic or ideologic concept of truth is categorically and strictly rejected. It should be recalled that the worst atrocities committed in our world were committed in the name of dogmatic truth claims. The principle of criticism is fundamentally important and is to be found in the modern world view of evolutionary humanism. The categorical imperative (1)   is an example of a guiding principle in accordance with a universal ethic.

Self-determination has a lot to do with asking questions. It is, therefore, not something that is simply given to the humans but needs an effort reflecting their will, objectives and decisions. (2)

Our decisions are directly related with our will. How can we picture the decision process to ourselves? In a decision-making process we have usually not just two or a few alternatives for action. (3)   We assess our alternatives for action and choose without doubt the option which appears best to us at the decision point. Thus only one specific decision can be made, depending on the situation. (4)

Therefore decision-making is based on education, acquired moral demands, emotions (5)   , instinct, urges, needs, trauma, genetic or pathological influences and also experiences.

In the decision-making process emotions dominate rationality. The neurosciences says in this context that "the limbic system - but not the rational system of the large cerebral cortex - has a direct access to the systems in our brain which ultimately determine our actions. The limbic system and not the rational cortical system has the first and the last word; the first in forming our wishes and goals and the last in the decision whether whatever one's reason and intellect has devised should be done just so now. This is because the advice provided by reason and intellect must be emotionally acceptable to the person taking the decision. Thus there is rational weighing of reasons for a course of actions and alternatives and their consequences, but there are no strictly rational actions. Regardless of the length of the process the pros and cons are always weighed on the basis of emotions (Roth 2009, 162). Many decisions take away our subconscious, instincts or habits.

If our personal experience and knowledge are extensive, we are more likely to choose an option that leads to the desired goal. Is this not a self-directed will? Being able to make a decision that makes us reach our goal simply, quickly and surely? But also that we can imagine as many goals as possible, evaluate them and that no irrational anxieties or feelings of guilt, traumas or phobia stand in our way when we choose and reach goals.

It should be mentioned at this point that there may be additional forces outside or inside the individual that influence decision making. Forces from outside are, for example, being locked up in prison, terrorized by a dictator or discriminated against on ethnic grounds. Forces from inside are, for example, loss of thinking ability and of the flux of subjective experience, or neurotic anxieties. Moreover, the necessary influence and the means to implement the desired action are required.

The more we depend on externally determined factors and hence illusionary and unreasonable factors, the more we are restricted in our freedom of action. These factors include prejudices, errors, false doctrines, manipulation, usurpations, biased indoctrination, ignorance, disharmony, narcissisms, neurosis and psychosis. Because of this, they are unstable and restrict us.

In this explanatory model instinct, drives, feelings and subconscious contents can be allocated predominantly to self-determination, as they constitute useful mechanisms to cope with reality. Unsurprisingly, on the other hand, they can also be counterproductive and restrictive.

Thus, self-determined action is free action, but this does not mean that action is not caused. This approach to our will has consequences that touch essential cultural and institutional institutions, as a free will in the sense of an unconditional or uncaused will is exposed as a construction and hence an ideology or dogma that does not reflect the reality. Consequently there is no freedom to choose between good and evil. This understanding is by no means new. The question whether humans have unconditioned free will was already negated by Einstein (6)   , Edison, Darwin, Freud, Schopenhauer (7)    , Nietzsche and others. (8)  

What are the consequences? Analysis shows that there are reasons and causes for every decision, and a person can only take a fully specific decision in his or her specific situation. Every decision is determined by the respective external and internal conditions and the cognitive and psychological process in the human consciousness.

A first consequence could be that determination of the human will by external forces could scratch our ego. But does not self-determination exactly strengthen our ego? Sound self-confidence needs no mysterious undetermined quality of the will.

As a second consequence, would it have consequences for the legal system? Roman law, which is the basis of most legal systems in the West, presupposes a freedom to choose between "permitted" and "prohibited". Every society needs rules to make a satisfactory social coexistence possible. Only where a community or a country agrees on such rules is an orderly life possible. Such rules are only helpful if they are respected. Where rules are not respected, appropriate punishment or correctives are necessary. In a society rules can and must be set on the basis of consensus, and also sanctions are possible and necessary. Society must be protected from violent criminals by putting them in prison, if necessary. Even the circumstance that a person's decisions are determined cannot and must not change this requirement. But the person should not be seen as evil incarnate, because the exact causes and triggers of his or her actions are unknown. (9)   

In smaller groups, for example in a family, the necessary rules and sanctions can be replaced by more liberal measures. Current research results on the inner life of dangerous criminals, as for example described in the book on "the serial killer principle" by Stephan Harbort, provide deeper insights into how horrific crimes come about, making some of it easier to understand. Childhood and youth play an essential role. (10)

Broken homes, sexual abuse, alcoholism and parental coldness, mobbing, emotional abandonment, physical punishment, general neglect are major risk factors, but also overprotective behavior. Serious crimes are to a considerable extent attributable to the resulting feeling of inferiority and the loss of basic trust in combination with fateful factors and genetic factors. (11)

In the introduction to his book the renowned criminal investigator from Germany, who collaborates with several universities on research projects, makes the frightening statement that "some here among us probably reach the following irritating conclusion at the end of the book: It could be me". (Harbort 2009, 13). Other authors, e.g. the Austrian court psychiatrist Reinhard Haller (2007), have also provided interesting information on this subject.

We do not have to expect negative consequences in society if we negate the freedom to choose between good and evil but we can expect positive ones, as such an approach reduces hatred and promotes tolerance in the community. (12)   Investigation of the causes of crimes can have a positive effect on the general conditions and reduce crime rates. (13)  

As a third consequence, it would pose a problem for many religious beliefs because assignment of guilt and threats were and in some places still are used, albeit often subliminally und subtly, as leverage to create pressure and fear. It would not pose a problem for the love, tolerance and indulgence described e.g. in the gospels, although undeniably assignment of guilt is firmly established also in many Bible passages, and it would be necessary to repudiate those passages. (14)    In our present understanding of Christianity, at least from a clerical point of view, it is difficult to understand.

Below some basic ideas on the biblical concept of god and the theory that the human will is free: The Biblical God is described as almighty, omniscient and infinitely good. If god is almighty, a person cannot simultaneously have a free will. If man had a free will, god's omniscience would cease with the humans. The same applies to omniscience. If the omniscient god knows already in advance what decision will be taken by a person, that person cannot simultaneously have a free will. (15)   But if the person has no free will, eternal hell as a punishment is not justifiable. This would be contrary to the idea of an infinitely good god.

Generally, how are the many evils of the world compatible with an infinitely good, almighty and omniscient god? Why does god not prevent a small, innocent child from dying in a house on fire, for example? Or how is the indescribable suffering caused by earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions justifiable?

The concept of "almightiness" is also problematic from the point of view of logics: God could not, for example, create a stone that is so heavy that even he cannot lift it. Moreover, there is a contradiction between infinite goodness and free choice between good and evil. How could an infinitely good god ever decide to do something evil? He could not do it.

Furthermore, a free will in the sense of an unconditional will contradicts the causality principle. What inside us could it be then that enables us to choose between good and evil? Is it something evil inside us, for instance an evil force? But from where would this force come? Has it always existed? Or does it change randomly? If there is such a power, it can only come from outside, and therefore it could not produce a free will. In any case it would be of a highly doubtful nature. (16)

If one holds the opinion that a person has no right to form an opinion about god, the question arises how else a person should be able to distinguish god from demons? For faith it is decisive that it must be reasonable and responsible.