Another addition to the evaluation of rock and roll argumentation. Last time, Jem suggested a discussion of Rush's "Free Will." Here goes. (Lyrics here)
I remember back in high school when someone told me that Rush was 'thinking man's music.' I heard some of the songs, and I wasn't really sure what what my friend was getting at. In fact, it was "Free Will" that he played for me, and my opinion now is pretty much the same. Geddy Lee/Neil Peart are just confused about the whole metaphysical issue, and this confusion leads them to some pretty harsh judgments of the downtrodden.
In a nutshell, "Free Will" is the following set of commitments. #1: If you are committed to fatalism or determinism, you are looking to lay the responsibility for your life's failings on anyone or anything but yourself. (Fate, the gods, and perhaps social conditions). #2. Laying the responsibility for one's life (and its failings) outside oneself leads one to inaction. #3. If you are committed to free will, you hold yourself responsible for your life. #4. If you hold yourself responsible for your life, you are more active in that life.
The first two commitments are the ones that get the most attention, and so the majority of the song is out to cast the poor as people who rationalize their poverty as a consequence of fate, when it actually is because of their own inaction.
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.
The implication of 'Lotusland' is that the only benefits that some people appreciate are those of sloth. Alternately, the case for #3 and #4 is made but briefly:
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.
In a way, the Rush strategy is akin to the old pragmatist reconstructions of metaphysical views. In this case, determinism/fatalism is pragmatically a form of passivity and irresponsibility, and libertarianism is a form of activity and responsibility. So choosing a metaphysics is equivalent to choosing what kind of person you will be (and the consequences of being that person).
The implication is that if you help others (especially because you see them as mere victims of fate), you consequently encourage their further dependence.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
The conclusions (suppressed of course) are that: C1: One ought to choose the active and responsible life. C2: So one should choose free will as a metaphysics. C3: Those who live the passive and irresponsible life (and suffer the poverty and ills that come with it) are nevertheless responsible for that life, because "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". (And so: the poor have, really, chosen to be that way!) Finally, because treating the poor as though they are victims of fate promotes their conception of themselves as passive and not responsible for their lives, C4: We ought not even help the poor (as, again, that would be "kindness that can kill").
I will limit myself to three criticisms. First, the fact of moral luck seems perfectly obvious. No matter how active a farmer you are, you can't use your free will to choose that your crops not be eaten by locusts or withered by a drought. Your choosing free will has no impact on whether you are part of your company's downsizing, that you get brain cancer, or develop a psychosis. (This song will set you straight on that.) No matter how free will-ist you are, if you're born to a family with little money, no interest in education or social improvement, and a proclivity to violence, it doesn't take much figuring to lay odds on your coming life. So sometimes it's a reasonable attitude to blame the fates.
Second, there is nothing in the argument that shows that it is true that there is free will, only that believing that you have free will makes you more active. So far, a Hellenistic fatalist could accept that. In fact, the old fatalists like Euripides had a term for the thought that their fates were in their own hands — hubris. Unless it is false that the gods control the world, Rush's suggestions here put his listeners in danger of one of the greatest errors mortals could make, that is, taking themselves to be like gods. I presume that Rush has taken it for granted that the gods aren't in control, but that makes their whole argument from consequences superfluous. In fact, it makes the whole song (as an argument) beg the question.
Third, and finally, the two rhetorically most powerful moments in the song key on the fact that one has "chosen" one of the options between freedom and fatalism/determinism. The first is that if you go with fatalism, "you still have made a choice," and the second is that Geddy/Neil "will choose free will." But the free will – determinism issue can be recast to bear on whether the choice in either of these cases is determined. So the determinist maybe could say: Sure, you choose free will. That's exactly the kind of person you are — you're a stridently independent, anti-authoritarian, rock and roller. That's what they all choose. The fact that you choose free will just goes to show how determined you are. As a consequence, this choice business, despite the fact that it's the rhetorical peak of the song, is an utter argumentative failure.
Oh, and the guitar solo is a noodly mess, too.