Going loco

Thomas the Tank Engine is in trouble. He has persuaded another engine to let him have a go at pulling freightGoods carried by lorry, ship, train or plane. wagons. But as he comes downhill into the station where he is supposed to stop, the wagons keep pushing him on; he puts on his brakes in vain. He only finally comes to a halt when he hits the buffersA bumper stopping trains from travelling too far. in the goods yard. And there the Fat Controller gives him a telling off.

This might seem like just another story for young children. But writing last week in The Conversation, Matyas Moravec hit upon Thomas as a way to understand a question that has challenged many philosophers. Are we free to make our own decisions about how we live our lives?

Thomas is an engine who behaves like a human. He can make decisions and choices. He is also morally responsible: when he does something wrong, he is punished.

But his actions are limited by the tracks he has to move along, and the railway timetable. That suggests that he only seems to have free will.

Determinists, who do not believe in free will, argue that the world is governed by the laws of physics. A kettle left on a flaming hob will boil: there is no alternative.

In the same way, Moravec explains, our bodies "are physical objects made of atomsThe smallest unit of any chemical element. and moleculesTwo or more atoms connected by chemical bonds. governed by laws of physics... every decision and action we take can ultimately be traced back to some initial conditions at the beginning of the universe".

But, he adds, if this is the case, why should Thomas be blamed when things go wrong?

A leading American philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, suggests an answer. Even if bad things are bound to happen, we are responsible if we help with the process, either willingly or through negligenceFailure to take proper care of something. . The freight wagons' momentumStrength gained by motion or a continuous series of events. made it physically impossible for Thomas to stop at the station, but as an inexperienced engine he should never have asked to pull them.

Moravec, however, asks another question: "How about a universe where Thomas' future is not determined? Would he be free there?"

His answer is that Thomas might be free, but he would not be in control: "A universe where the future is completely undetermined, where it is too open to alternatives, is just too chaotic." We need to know that the kettle will always boil when we put it on the hob, and not sometimes freeze instead.

Writing in The Guardian, Stuart Jeffries suggests that we already have too many alternatives. He quotes the psychologist Barry Schwartz: "If we're rational, [social scientists] tell us, added options can only make us better off as a society. This view is logically compelling, but empiricallyThrough observation or experience, rather than just theory. it isn't true."¹

Too much choice can simply be overwhelming. In an experiment, one group of shoppers was shown 24 different jams, and a second group just six jams.² Only 3% of the first group bought one, while 30% of the second did.

Once the decision has been made, there is a further stress. Because of the many alternatives, the shoppers worry that their choice was the wrong one, and become dissatisfied with it.

Yes: It is much easier to make a decision if your options are limited. It means that you can think about all of them carefully and be confident that you are making the best possible choice.

No: There is no such thing as too much choice. Everybody has different tastes, and it would be brilliant if all of them were catered for.    

Or... It is not half as stressful as having too little choice. During World War Two, for example, food and clothes were strictly rationed and people had to be grateful for whatever they could get.