Free Will, written by Sam Harris explores the question of whether or not humans have free will. In his book, Harris concludes that free will is essentially impossible. In the beginning of his book, Harris starts out by disproving the idea of free will by stating, “Without free will, sinners and criminals would be nothing more than poorly calibrated clock work, and any conception of justice that emphasized punishing them (rather deterring, rehabilitating, or merely containing them) would appear utterly incongruous. And those of us who work hard and follow the rules would not ‘deserve’ our success in any deep sense” (Harris, 1). Harris ends the quote by noting that most people do not believe in theses conclusions.
As a determinist, Harris believes that human actions derive from one's past experiences. In Free Will Harris uses the example of Komisarjevsky and Hayes who had murdered a Connecticut family. In this case, Harris connects both Komisarjevsky and Hayes actions in this murder to their past experience of abuse. He states, “If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23rd, 2007 -- that is if I had his genes and life experience
…show more content…
I would have liked to know about the cases in which ones actions weren't solely based on one's biology or their past, but Harris didn't deliver. Instead, Harris ranted for a few short pages about one topic, never giving concrete examples to his claims, or addressing the pieces that do not fit into his theory. This is ultimately why I cannot agree with this book or Harris as an author. Perhaps if Harris had gone deeper into his examples his theory would be a little easier to buy into, but that is not the case here, and besides if I don't have free will, then I am unconsciously and biologically programed to loath this