Autonomy and self-control

Nature and the individual

Current estimates of the total lifespan of all forms of life on earth place it at approximately five billion years. Four and a half billion years or 90% of that total have already gone. That leaves another 500 million years or 10% to go, before all forms of life on earth cease to exist. Mankind is about to turn the last bend into the straight for the final sprint. He still has a lot to do if he wants to survive the end of the solar system. Time is running out for us to complete the process of emergence of the individual. We are 90% there and just have another 10% to go. It could well be that it is those final 10% which are the most difficult to achieve, the most spectacular in terms of results and perhaps, also, the most rewarding. It is difficult to imagine a totally autonomous individual as he may exist in 500 million years time. Perhaps there will be as much difference between him and us as there was between us and the primordial bacteria, Archaea, RNA (ribose nucleic acid),stromatolite, or whatever.

Conscience and free will

The human concept of justice applies to persons presumed responsible for their acts unless proven otherwise. This notion of responsibility appears to have its origins in nature. It is to be observed, in particular, in connection with the reproductive cycle of life and the survival of the species. Procreation is usually the function of the female of the species who also often bears the primary responsibility for nurturing and protecting the offspring until they become autonomous. Nature appears to have endowed other responsibilities on the male member of the species in order to assure its survival.

While these functions or duties appear to have been largely determined by nature in the form of what we commonly call instincts, unlike breathing, they are not under the exclusive control of the unconscious. They require the active cooperation of the conscious mind in strategic planning and decision making in order to be effective. This brings into play what we call free-will which also appears to be a necessary constituent of nature in assuring the survival of the species.

Just how free free-will actually is, is a question of debate among philosophers and scientists, many considering that it is not free at all. It is a debate which is impossible to settle in general terms due to the fact that both conscience and free-will are evolutionary processes which advance at variable degrees, rates and rhythms from one community to another and from one individual to another within the same community. We know approximately when the whole process started and we have a fair idea of when it is due to end but we are quite incapable of measuring the precise degree of maturity of the conscience or free-will of any particular individual at a particular point of time

Superstition and religious dogma aside, the most plausible explanation of the genesis of life appears to have been provided by the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) who is reported to have observed that "Everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity". Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed that theory in his book "Le hasard et la nécessité" (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this it is deduced that "Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment". Chance in this context should be understood as meaning a "random variable" and necessity an "inevitable" event.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development is progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning. It has been evolving ever since the apparition of life on earth of which human beings are by far the most advanced form. We have long surpassed all other forms of life and all other animal species in terms of autonomy and continue to make progress, generation after generation. Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

Autonomy or free will implies that the individual is capable of governing himself, of determining his own thoughts and actions without, or in spite of, outside influence. He must clearly be in the driving seat. He must exercise what we call self control. Self control is an integral component of autonomy. If there is no self control, there is no autonomy. The degree of autonomy is determined by the degree of self control and vice versa.

As the individual continues to emerge and develop free will, his vision of society and the environment in which he evolves takes on a new perspective. He develops a greater awareness of his earthly condition and the nature of his existence and life in general.

The emerging faculty to extract himself from his environment and observe himself as an individual is fuelled by that innate, basic emotion we call curiosity which mankind shares with other animal species. Our curiosity and need for understanding leads us to develop a capacity for abstract thought and imagination when no obvious rational explanation is available. It is a gradual evolutionary process that allows us to develop the capacity to project our minds beyond perceived reality in our quest for an explanation. Conscience and free will continue to emerge as a result of this development.

The continued emergence of the individual producing a more acute degree of conscience as well as a greater capacity to exercise free will, necessarily modifies mankind's relationship with his fellow human beings. Some relationships are reinforced. Others are re-positioned, re-negotiated or, perhaps discarded. However, this natural evolution rarely engenders the relaxation or abandonment of existing social ties, forms of association or cooperation and solidarities. It more often provokes their redefinition, evolution, reorganisation or replacement. Social relationships tend to become stronger and more effective because individuals are quick to recognize that it is generally in their best interests to conserve and reinforce them. There can, however, be no free will without the possibility of individuals to choose, deliberately or inadvertently, a course of action contrary to their perceived best interests. This possibility exists and may be freely exercised at all times and in all circumstances.

The development of conscience and free-will depends not only on the biological and psychological development of each individual but also on his or her personal development of knowledge, culture, intelligence, experience, perspicacity and sensitivity. As previously observed, such attributes, whether inherited or acquired, are not equally developed among all individuals. Nor are they constant in respect of any one individual throughout his or her life. The capacity to exercise conscience and free-will may vary considerably from one individual to another at various stages of his life. Each individual matures and develops at his own particular rhythm depending on the circumstances and the environment in which he evolves.

Conscience has to do with awareness of what is at stake from a moral point of view, discerning right from wrong. It has a religious connotation. There is no right or wrong in nature. There is only what is most efficient for survival and development.

The faculty nature has endowed us with is not conscience in the moral or religious sense but in the sense of consciousness, the awareness of reality and of what is most efficient, not just for our own survival and development but for that of the whole species of which we are a member.

The degree of conscience of some individuals appears to be particularly limited, as illustrated by their behaviour: an irate mother who shakes her baby so violently that she inadvertently kills it; somebody who flicks a burning cigarette out the window of a car while driving on a forest road; parents who leave small children playing unattended on the edge of a swimming pool; nightclub proprietors who padlock fire-escape exits to prevent people entering without paying; people who live in natural catastrophe zones (near the sea-side, rivers, or lakes subject to flooding, in remote places exposed to severe criminal aggression, in forests that are potential furnaces, in seismic or hurricane zones, or near nuclear reactors) or somebody who dries a domestic animal in a micro-wave oven or uses electrical appliances while taking a bath, are a few typical examples. Many people live their lives dangerously without realizing it.

In the same manner, many people are capable of an extraordinary degree of indifference to the gross misfortune and suffering of others. Most of us are capable of calmly enjoying our dinner while casually regarding televised news broadcasts of the dramatic events devastating the lives of people whom we do not know personally. Behaviour patterns constantly reflect the widespread conviction that individual freedoms supersede natural and social constraints.

It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who first suggested in 1893 that societies dispose of a common or collective conscience, as a distinguishing factor similar to that of culture. This analysis appears to have been fairly largely approved and adopted over the years by his peers around the world. Carl Jung extended the concept in 1919 to what he called the collective unconscious. From there to suggest that it could also be extended to include a collective free will is a step some may be prepared to take at the risk of coining what others may consider an oxymoron. There seems no reason, however, why a group of individuals or even society as a whole should not be considered as exercising free will if we accept the idea of free will as autonomy. Collective free will in this sense would designate the autonomy of the group or society as a whole to make its own collective decisions and take whatever action it deems appropriate without any outside influence or interference.

Irresponsibility

So far as justice is concerned an individual over a prescribed minimum age is responsible for his or her acts, including individuals whose unconscious behaviour and failure to exercise due precaution is prejudicial to others. Ignorance of the law is neither an exonerating nor a mitigating factor. The onus of proof is on the individual or those assigned to his or her defence to establish irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility can be established by proving that the accused individual lacks a conscience or faculty of discernment due to a mental disorder and was incapable of wilful intent. This is achieved in less than one in a thousand of all criminal cases brought before the courts in most democratic countries.

The lack of conscience or faculty of discernment may be temporary due perhaps to the influence of drugs or alcohol or a severe emotional shock (jealousy, fear, irresistible impulse). If established, this may be admitted in certain circumstances as an exonerating or mitigating factor of responsibility, more likely the latter than the former.

With dementia on the rise in aging populations of the world's developed countries, the percentage of individuals disposing of free will is on the decline. Developed countries are generally experiencing slow or no population growth at all whereas dementia is taking on epidemic proportions. According to a 2000 report from the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 6% to 10% of the population 65 years and older in North America already have dementia.

A recent report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics for Alzheimer's Australia, a federation of state organisations funded by the Commonwealth Government, found that despite the fact that Australia is a young, vibrant country, dementia is without question the single biggest health issue facing its population in the 21st century. It is estimated that in the absence of new medications to treat dementia the number of people suffering from the epidemic will be multiplied by 3.5 to reach a total of just under 1 million by 2050 for an estimated population of 35 million, nearly 3% of the total population of the country.