An Argument Against Moral Responsibility, based on Determinism
Some philosophers argue that you are not morally responsible for anything you do.
Their argument begins with an everyday example of a situation where most of us would agree there is no moral responsibility, and then extends it to apply to all situations.
The example goes like this. You are not to blame for missing class if this was caused by your train derailing on the way to the university and you being hospitalized. You have no moral responsibility, because you did not have the option of not missing the class. Your missing the class was determined by events beyond your control. The general claim they are making here is that you are not morally responsible for something you did, if you actually had no other choice: if you could not have acted otherwise.
Then these philosophers expand on the above example, based on a claim called Determinism, which says that in life you never have another choice. It says that every single thing a person does is predetermined, and so the person never has any other option besides what in fact happens. Determinism, which is not itself a moral view, is supported as follows: according to science, every event that happens in the universe is a consequence of the preceding state of the universe, just like a billiard ball must move when hit by another billiard ball. In other words, a chain of causality, going back in time, explains every event. All the goings-on in the universe, from the galaxies to the neurons in your brain, are governed by scientific laws of cause and effect. This means that at any given instant there is only one physically-possible future. Since human actions are just events in the universe, it follows that every human action is already fixed or settled by previous events that were in turn determined by earlier events. When we think that we are choosing between several options, this is just an illusion, because what “choice” we make is determined by the state of the universe right before that moment, which includes the state of our own brain (where “choices” happen).
And the truth of Determinism, it is now argued, means that we are not morally responsible for what we do. Because moral responsibility requires that we could have acted otherwise; but in fact in every case, we couldn’t.
How would you reply to this argument?
– If you think that sometimes people are morally responsible for what they do, then give a critique of the argument (see IMPORTANT NOTE below). Do not just say the argument is wrong, or that we are morally responsible. Also, dispute the reasoning of someone in the class who disagrees with you.
– If you don’t think people are ever morally responsible, provide an expansion/defense of the argument, and dispute the reasoning of someone in the class who disagrees with you.
HINT: there are two main strategies you could use to dispute this argument.
One is to dispute Determinism itself. (Determinism is not a moral view.)
The other is to dispute the claim that Determinism entails that people never are morally responsible for their actions. Be clear on which (or both) of these claims you are disputing.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When you reply to an argument, you must focus on the premises of the argument. (Are they true? Do they adequately support the conclusion?) Which premise or premises do you think are not doing the job? Do not merely focus on the conclusion of the argument – we want you to demonstrate your ability to critique reasoning, not merely to hold opinions.
