Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Do we have free will?

By Louis O'Neill - posted Monday, 5 November 2018

Though what of us without brain tumors?

There are many day-to-day examples that can go unnoticed, but make the case similarly. For example when you are hungry, your free will is somewhat hijacked by thoughts of food. When you are dependent on some kind of drug, your free will is hijacked by addiction. What we don't realize, is that thoughts which we do not conjure up ourselves, commandeer our actions in every scenario in life.

To use a more accessible example, take mindful meditation. For those that have tried (and if you are like myself, you quickly gave up,) you will soon learn that it is easier said than done to abandon your internal monologue. No matter how hard you try to simply focus on your breathing, inevitably, thoughts will emerge.


Whether you have happy thoughts, anxious thoughts, or even psychopathic thoughts, all depends on the brain you were given from birth.

Upon hearing this however, many question the purpose of the judicial system. If we have no free will, how then can anyone be culpable for their actions?

Well, interestingly, Sam Harris says that we aren't.

Harris' claim is that the judicial system should be focused purely on what will yield the best future outcome.

For example, take two individuals, both of whom unleash a physical barrage upon an innocent bystander.

Take the first individual, let's call them individual A in this case. Imagine this individual is found to have bipolar disorder. The other individual, individual B, is what we might call a stock-standard human.


With individual A, imprisonment isn't the best recourse, as the mental condition of having bipolar won't change simply through being locked up. In this instance, the best action to take may be some form of medication.

With individual B, however, the best recourse may be in fact to lock them up, perhaps coupled with anger management therapy.

This may yield the significant effect on the person to place them on a course of rehabilitation, to ensure that negative future actions are mitigated.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

This article was first published on Medium.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

90 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Louis O'Neill is a writer from Sydney having graduated from Macquarie University with a Bachelor of Writing focusing on issues of philosophy, morality, religion and social commentary.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Louis O'Neill

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 90 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy