One Among Many

You say “As the moral code and the doctrine of free will are internalized, they become a means of social control….Isn't that supremely ironic? What controls you is the belief that you are not controlled!”

Yes! This is a key insight needing widespread dissemination. As you may know, B.F. Skinner made the same point in his writings, saying that what he called "the myth of autonomous man" was a means of getting people to ignore the actual causal story behind their troubles, and blame only themselves (or take all the credit if they had success). This helps block the drive for social justice.

Another psychologist who gets this is John Bargh, see http://centerfornaturalism.blogspot.com/2009/07/freedom-from-free-will.html He says:

"To my mind, one potential benefit to getting people to not believe so strongly in the power of their own personal agency or free will is that they might then be more concerned about external influences or even explicit attempts by advertisers, government, etc. to control what they do (eat, drink, buy, vote). Research by Tim Wilson and Nancy Brekke (Psychological Bulletin, 1994) has shown that people do not worry very much about these influence attempts because they believe they are the captains of their minds and in near-complete control over their judgments and behaviors."

Echoing Bargh, I wrote the following recently in response to someone worried that free will is becoming extinct, http://drhelen.mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/05/is-free-will-becoming-extinct/:

"The illusion that does the most damage is that we have some sort of innate power *not* to be affected by influences. This is exactly what advertisers, demagogues and other influence peddlers would like you to think, to make you an easier mark. The myth of free will thus becomes an instrument of control. Power to the people comes from seeing exactly how we are influenced by those who seek to control us. So don't get taken in by the idea that there's something about you immune from control - there isn't. This is why regulation, arrived at by free and open democratic process, is necessary: to keep manipulators at bay. Fight back against the manipulators! Don't let them trick you into believing you have free will!"

There seems to be a broader issue underlying this discussion of regret, and that is: How does the brain use past experience to guide present and anticipated behavior?

Brains are constantly evaluating whether past behavior had the desired outcome or not, and to what extent the situation in which it occurred resembles the present or might occur in the future. This is an entirely determined process, and doesn’t necessarily include the consideration of “could I have done differently” (free will), but “can I do differently now.” The calculation of the success or failure of past behavior becomes a determinant of present and future behavior, and may result in a different decision in similar circumstances.

The fact that the brain is making these calculations doesn’t necessarily mean that they are available for conscious, rational scrutiny. Totally rational processes may not be adequate guides for behavior in any case, as Antonio Damasio’s work with people whose emotions were compromised by brain injury suggests. Without emotional associations, decision-making is severely compromised, even in people who are still capable of rational thought.

Emotions are the result of brain calculations which conclude, in effect, that the outcome of a particular behavior was one we would want to repeat—or not—given whatever value system we have acquired. “Regret” seems to be one of the possible emotions that is aroused by an event we would rather not repeat.

The realization that we don’t have free will, and couldn’t have done differently at the time, frees the brain from heaping recrimination on “the decision maker that made the decision,” but may still allow for an emotional response that labels that particular decision an unfortunate one.

One need not suppose that "I could have acted differently" or that "I should have acted differently." Realizing the truth of determinism allows the brain to ask what circumstances might have produced the behavior, and further, why did it produce the emotional response that it did. It allows it to ask if there were any “manipulators” involved, as Tom Clark describes them.

I think it is possible to have regret without guilt, in which case one might say, “I wish the determinants that produced that decision had been different, and I hope they don’t recur, to which end I am emphasizing the negative connotations.”

Such an attitude might be conducive to instances in which “...regret is brief and not too intense, it might serve as a signal to act differently in the future…”