“Free Will” Under the Hood
Market is widely understood to be synonymous with exchange of goods and services. Such market based exchanges have been considered to be better than the possible alternatives. The main characteristic of markets is its emphasis on free exchange in contrast to coercion involved in other alternatives scheme of affairs. However, the difference between these two alternatives is not cut and dry as we perceive it to be from class room. Market exchange derives its superiority mainly due to this and that the exchange benefits both the parties, as otherwise that exchange would not happen. This description hinges on the phrase “free will” to a great extent to gain its legitimacy. Almost everyone would understand exchange in a straight forward manner but free will would be understood in multiple different ways. Such a lack of uniform understanding of this phrase would make us uncomfortable as it strikes at the foundation of market based exchange. “I know it when I see it” approach would be unacceptable as this is related to the definition of a widely held and dominant economic thinking.
The alternative social construct that is mostly used to contrast with free will is that of “putting a gun to the head” kindling up memories of the famous dialogue from the movie Godfather, “offer he can’t refuse”. So a transaction without this influence is deemed to be compliant with doctrine of free will exchange. Let’s call this the minimalist criterion for free will. The contrast used in its explanation would help one clearly understand free will great certainty. Such a clarity has been very helpful in it becoming the basis for legal validity of a contract or a transaction, as its relatively easier to verify with very less chances of subjectivity. The ease of such practical usage has been the strength of this approach and contributing to great extent for it becoming the widely held understanding of the concept of “free will”. This has become the common yardstick for evaluating the legitimacy of a market transaction.
The minimalist approach of free will is highly restricted to the immediate setting of a transaction. By virtue of this limitation its felt that the absence of such an explicit coercion may not be able to completely describe the setting of a transaction as there could be other important and relevant factors beyond this. It would look foolhardy to move over such a clear construct which is widely understood and advocated. However, if the clarity is achieved by virtue of a very narrow construct of a situation, then it would seem to be irrelevant to actual situations surrounding a transaction. By this I am not criticizing a theory/model for not being all encompassing, as by its very definition some abstraction would be required. It is more akin to moving from a first order analysis to higher order ones. As usual this runs the risk of leading to an epistemological anarchy on such an important topic.
Get Senthil Kumar Natarajan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The deeper approaches look into the motivation, needs and other driving factors for entering into a transaction beyond its immediate setting. If a person has to sell his wealth for sustenance, can it be considered free will? An example would help understand this. When a person who has lost his job is selling his house to buy food for his family, can it be considered as a transaction complaint with the doctrine of free will? It would pass the test of the minimalist doctrine however there would be multiple arguments of higher order that would try to explain this as not conforming to free will. These arguments have a different or rather broader view of free will with the propositions of minimalist doctrine being immanent to it. Economic theories also highlight that a transaction would happen between parties to fulfill their respective needs and thereby those in surplus of some would seek what they are deficit from others. Such a seemingly neutral characterisation would run into problems when it faces a socially determined hierarchy of the various needs. A person deficit in luxury car buying it from a manufacturer would seem to be socially acceptable one, but a person deficit in food selling his car for fulfilling that need would not seem to be a socially respectable one. So juxtaposing the economic and social aspects of transaction will lead to a much less clarity in characterising it as being complaint with free will.
The rise of behavioural economics has led to a counter current albeit unintended by its founders. The argument is that one does not necessarily do what that person wants due to various biases. This seems to drive a point that at least in some cases people who decide by their own free will may not decide what is best for them. Terms like “what is best” are also soft ones with multiple interpretations, however it provides support to the view that free will need not be the driving factor for one’s welfare. More generally free will itself is shackled by various social or mental biases that it would not be the most sought out one in all situations.
Strategic behaviour by companies in promoting goods and services through various modes of promotion also leads to arguments in favour of looking at a broader context of free will. We may buy a chocolate out of our own free will. However, if the desire and need for chocolate is created by huge advertising spends then we would doubt that it has been bought under conditions of free will. It all depends on how detailed and with what depth a situation surrounding a transaction is explained.
This approach of looking at the broader situation surrounding a transaction would be unnerving as it involves issues that are disparate and raise concerns about tractability. A more important concern would be that these alternatives describe concerns surrounding a transaction but does not positively define the situation or conditions under which transactions can be considered to be classified under free will. What is acceptable or not is decided predominantly by a social process and what is considered as complaint with free will today may not be considered as being compliant tomorrow. However, what’s important is that the society arrives at a conclusion on the rules under which today would work and also look at changing it for tomorrow through a process that is agreeable without leading to an unstable and impoverished society. So let’s keep debating all these aspects, while remembering that a prescription is a social compromise that needs to be arrives at.
