Teaching the Concept of Free Will to Fourth Graders

During yesterday's Sunday School class, I taught my little mensch 4th graders the meaning of the concept of free will. I absolutely couldn't have done it without the major help of Gila Gevirtz's "Count Me In, Jewish Wisdom in Action,"  which provided a step-by-step methodical way to take the kids from one idea to the next, along with supporting questions, stories and references. 

The first concept we discussed was, "How are humans different from animals?"  A dog can be trained to sit quietly while the family is at dinner, but it can't be taught to understand that it's rude to interrupt people when they are eating. The students answered the following two questions:

1.  How would you train a dog to sit quietly while the family eats dinner?

2.  How would you teach a young child that it is impolite to interrupt someone who is speaking?

This led to a discussion of how "training" is different from "teaching," and the concept of understanding the reason behind what we do as compared with just acting.

Next, we discussed the idea that of all of God's creations, humans were the only one given free will. Free will combines two different attributes, understanding and power:

1.  The ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.

2.  The power to choose.

The students then learned that according to the ancient rabbis, each of us has within us two competing impulses - one is the desire to do good, the yetzer hatov, and the other is the impulse each of us has toward selfishness, the yetzer hara.  I compared it to the way cartoon characters are often shown making a decision by having an angel on one shoulder, and the devil on the other.  They got it, and were very excited about it, believe it or not.

We continued by discussing a quote from Maimonides (who they knew of from a previous lesson when we learned about his degrees of tzedakah, which these amazingly brilliant 10 year olds also "got"):

"Free will is given to every human being.  If a person wants to turn toward the way of goodness and be righteous, that person has the power to do so.  If a person wants to turn toward the way of evil, that person has the freedom to do so." 

And they then answered to following question:

In your opinion, why do some people sometimes choose evil over good?

Their answers reflected two reasons:  Basic selfishness and/or the desire to escape responsibility.

Next we discussed the challenge of overcoming our selfish impulses.  We went over the Talmudic description of the yetzer hara, that it is described in three ways:

1.  At first, it is light as a spider's web, but in the end can become as heavy as thick ropes.

2.  At first, it's like a passerby, then like a guest and finally it turns into the home owner.

3.  At first, the yetzer hara is sweet, but in the end it turns bitter.

In the beginning we think we'll give into it just this once, but then find we give into it again and again until it becomes acceptable or a habit. At first it feels good, but then there are the consequences of losing privileges and respect.  And they then answered this question:

What helps you make good choices when you feel very tempted to make a bad choice?

And we talked about the fact that their responses were all future oriented - for example, they did their homework right away after getting home from school because they wanted to get good grades, didn't want to get into trouble with their parents, etc.  And their poor choices were always for instant gratification and came when they didn't think about the future.

So, we had delineated man's difference from animals by noting that man possessed understanding of the difference between right and wrong and that man had the power to choose. 

Next, we determined the difference between man and angel - or perfect vs imperfect being. We discussed what it might be like if humans didn't have free will and only had the capacity to do good.  They said they wouldn't like this, that life would be boring, that it would mean the end of thought, that they would turn into robots and automatons. When asked if they'd be willing to give up the gift of free will, they all said they would not be willing to do so.

And I told them the following short story (from "Count Me In"):

Rabbi Moshe of Kobryn once looked up toward the sky and cried: "Dear angel! It is no trick to be an angel in heaven. You don't have to eat and drink, and earn money.  Come down to earth and worry about these things, and we shall see if you remain an angel." (Martin Buber, Tales of the Chasidim)

And then they each wrote a short story about an angel who visited earth for a day and finds out how challenging it is to switch places with a boy or girl like him or her.  And each of their stories was filled with having to wake up each day, eat, go to school, make friends, participate in class , do homework,do chores, listen to mother and father, put up with siblings, music lessons, soccer, etc etc.

And they realized that even at their young age being a human was difficult and that even at their young age, they handled things pretty well, despite not being perfect.

And then they were asked what would happen to the concept of "good" if we could only do good?  How much better is "good" when we as humans, with all of our flaws, willingly choose it over evil?  This, they got as well. 

There's nothing better than watching the light bulb go on when kids learn something new.

And so now, the hope is that when they choose the right thing, not only will they do it to avoid punishment or negative consequences, but because they know that if they were only able to follow their selfish inclinations like the animals or could only choose to do good like the angels - they would forfeit thought, understanding, and the power of choice. In short, choosing to be good despite temptation is pretty darned cool.

Comments

[DRaftervoi]

"And then they were asked what would happen to the concept of "good" if we could only do good?"

See Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange," although I don't recommend it for 4th graders.

[Gail]

I saw A Clockwork Orange years ago, but I don't remember it very well, so what I am about to say may or may not have anything to do with it. It ocurs to me that the countercultural movement contained within it an awful lot of conspiracy theory, positing that society in its emphasis on "good behavior" exerted a form of thought control, and the shackles of religion were claustrophobic and repressive, etc etc.

Free will is free will. One can also choose whether or not to believe in whatever anyone chooses or doesn't choose to believe in.

What I look at is outcome. What produces the happiest, most productive and most responsible people?

I come up with the same answer every time.

[DRaftervoi]

What I was referencing was Burgess' novel, in which the main character is "reformed" through a type of aversion therapy: he can no longer commit crimes, the very thought incapacitates him with extreme nausea. Burgess' premise is that people must have the free will to make moral choices, even evil ones, and that Alex, unable to choose evil, is no longer fully human: he is a "clockwork orange," a (metaphorical) machine with the appearance of something organic.

[Gail]

Ah. Ok, I get it. Thanks for explaining.

[alisa]

What produces the happiest, most productive and most responsible people?-----The capability to overcome err in judgement; the ability to be compassionate to others; and the instinct to know right from wrong. The biggest "what" though is the self esteem garnered from a life of "choices" both good and bad to make the character of one unique person. To me it is a choice. We are each uniquely different yet much the same.
Is that free will?

[Gail]

The way I see it: Free will is the ability to make reasoned choices. Our choices are reasoned via knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. And knowledge of what is right and what is wrong in the Western world is derived from Judeo-Christian tradition.

Some people don't think there's any such thing as free will. They think human beings are animals acting on instinct no matter how we try to dress it up.

I disagree.

[AndyJ]

When all about are being selfish and greedy without rebuke, is the unselfish one more moral, ethical or simply foolish?

Watching the morality play in the midst of the SF Gold Rush mentality it's easy to see that nobody sets out to be selfish, greedy or evil. It's the small steps, the compromises, the small corruptions that lead down the path. With great wealth springing up all around, it's hard to stay focused. Start (or join) a company and in less than 2 years be broke or extremely rich (YouTube, Google, Yahoo, etc.) What jobs to take; those with benefits and secure pay or those with none? How to trust those who promise great wealth down-the-road or a small slice of a great big pie?

What does competition and commitment to success do to those who started out so honest and strong?

NYC has great wealth but lacks the "jackpot" mentality that surrounds so much of Silicon Valley investing and workplace dynamic. The drive for return on investment puts a lot of pressure on people. It's almost like Las Vegas but with gambling as a team sport. Indididual corruption is easier to resist than group "everybody is doing it" or "We all agree, this is what we should do". The slippery slope is the group around you. Individuals are easier to understand and predict. Groups change in dynamic as their members change.

[Gail]

"When all about are being selfish and greedy without rebuke, is the unselfish one more moral, ethical or simply foolish?"

Without a specific case, I find it difficult to answer this. Every case has to be judged on its own merits.

Laws exist in the corporate world. One has to operate within them. One has to be honest. My husband is a securities attorney and spends his days showing people how to operate within the law. Though he has told me many stories about mean SOBs who yell, scream and turn purple demanding what they want, when they want it (preferably yesterday), he has never told me about any clients who were dishonest.

I think CEOs have every right to scream and yell and be ruthless and demanding - they support many people. If their businesses go down, so do many. Not everyone has that sort of energy or ruthlessness in them to be able to manage people, deals and millions of dollars and to do it right. The responsibility is intense.

The SEC is watching, and laws have to be obeyed. Outside of that, businesses come and go, some are successful, some are not. Some lose their shirts, and their employees are left jobless. That's the way of the free market. It IS a gamble. There ARE no guarantees of success. One can't assume anything anytime, anywhere - unless one is willing to shoulder the responsibility of running things oneself.

[AndyJ]

SEC regs are guidelines and minimal attempts to level the playing field. Enron had a lot of risk in their business model but then they had a few cross the line to falsifying and it all collapsed.

I was speaking about start-ups. New companies that go from idea to multi-billionaires in a few short years. Google and Youtube as examples. The bigs guys have much to lose by cutting corners. The next lower levels are doing all they can to rise...

The line is not always bright-wide-clear. There are many shades of grey. Getting customers, booking revenue, stealing talent, stealing ideas (copyright vs patent vs obvious knowledge). Internally, who gets promoted, who gets options, when are options dated? (why is that a scandal?) etc.

Laws exist to say what cannot be done. Whatever is left is legal? If legal is it ethical? Does he with most money represent the most legal and ethical?

[Gail]

"Does he with most money represent the most legal and ethical?"

Not anymore than he with the least does.

There are dishonest people out there of every stripe.

I like the way our system works. I love the competitive spirit and admire the people who work their rear ends off to succeed.

If we made businesses into charitable organizations, that would all end. We'd lose energy, spirit, creativity, drive, and our edge.

Yes - I agree with you that there are areas of gray in deciding what is or isn't ethical. And what's ethical to one is not always ethical to another. That's what courts and judges are for.

Bottom line: I think our Capitalistic system works much better than any other. If a person should fail or get ripped off or fired, there are many opportunities here for them to get back on their feet again.

In war, people have to kill and people have to die, and we don't like it, but we recognize the necessity. Not everyone can be a soldier. Not everyone has it in them to kill.

In business, people have to be killers too. Not everyone can be a businessman. Some people can't stand the risk. Some don't like to gamble.

That's why people like me become nurses and teachers. If you have the giving thing in you, you do the giving thing. If you have the killer instinct, you go into business or law.

I always remember that the only reason I am free to do my giving thing is because someone else is willing to kill - either literally or figuratively. Both giving and killing are necessary in the world as it is.

What I didn't mention in my post that began all of this is that there is a reason that the selfish instinct exists in all of us. The ancient rabbinical sages said that without the yetzer hara (the selfish inclination), no one would build a house, no one would get married, and no one would conduct business. People would be locked in place and not able to move for fear of doing evil.

I think businessmen/women get a bad rap and not enough praise for what they do. But then again, praise doen't matter to them anyway. It's not what they are about, it's not what drives them.

I am just being a little do-gooder, arguing their case. They hardly need me to protect them though. They can do a fine job without me.

I agree with you that there are cases where people go over the line. I think the law catches the most egregious ones. In my opinion, if too much competitiveness is stifled by law (nanny government, entitlements, etc), the system would get quagmired and the economy would slow down and we'd spiral into failure.

[Gail]

It's kind of like the anti-war crowd constantly harping about Abu Graib. Abu Graib was wrong. The perpetrators deserve punishment. But let's not tar and feather the entire US military over it.

I think people do the same thing with regard to the corporate culture. But not everyone is a complete a--hole.

One story I was struck by - an investment banking firm lost its CEO and half its staff on 9/11. Several competing firms helped it back on its feet with free office space, support staff, equipment, etc. The reason the survivors wanted to keep the business going so badly? To help the widows and children of those who were lost.

[Derek]

In my opinion teaching children they have freewill does nothing but imprison them. It seems insane that people still believe in the concept of free-will and continue to encourage this idea in the next generation.

[Gail]

Who made you say that?