Galen Strawson and the Impossibility of Moral Responsibility - Essay Example

? Galen Strawson and The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility According to Galen Strawson, “free will and moral responsibility do not exist” (“Galen Strawson”). Why is this so? This is done through the “Basic Argument” of Strawson, which tries to prove that “we cannot be truly or ultimately responsible for our actions” (“Galen Strawson”). The Basic Argument of Strawson is actually a 10-premise argument that arrives at the conclusion that “true moral responsibility is impossible” (“Galen Strawson”). The first premise is: (1) “Interested in free action, we are particularly interested in actions that are performed for a reason, as opposed to ‘reflex’ actions or mindlessly habitual actions” (“Galen Strawson”). This means that free will cannot divorce itself from reason, and those that are automatically done cannot have been done out of reason, and thus out of free will. In this major premise which begins the whole argument, Strawson basically states one thing: “That if an action is done out of mindlessness, then it must not have done out of reason and thus it must not have been done out of free will; but conversely, if an action is done out of free will, then it must be done out of reason.” Therefore, in order to establish the link between moral responsibility and free will, one must accept a priori that free will brings with it reasonable actions. The second premise is (2) “When one acts for a reason, what one does is a function of how one is, mentally speaking” (“Galen Strawson”). After having established that free will must be expressed through reasonable actions, Strawson now proceeds to establish the necessary link between reason and moral responsibility. He begins this by defining what it means to act reasonably or how reason is basically applied to one’s actions and beliefs. According to Strawson, the only way to act reasonably is to act according to how one is, or according to one’s true self. The third premise is (3) “So if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking – at least in certain respects” (“Galen Strawson”). This premise, which is not formed either from premise 1 or premise 2, actually establishes the a priori idea that responsibility for one’s actions and decisions translates as responsibility for one’s nature. This means that since one is responsible for one’s actions and decisions, then one must be responsible for one’s nature too. Whatever one does or decides for oneself, one necessarily takes full responsibility of. The purpose of this premise is to be able to establish the idea of choice from the idea of responsibility, but that is if this is possible. In the end, however, the idea of choice is proven to be vague and, as a consequence, the idea of responsibility is proven as nonexistent. The fourth premise (4) “But to be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must have brought it about that one is the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects. And it is not merely that one must have caused oneself to be the way one is, mentally speaking. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, and one must have succeeded in bringing it about that one is that way” (“Galen Strawson”). From reason, or from the premises 2 and 3, which state that reason is necessary for responsibility, Strawson begins to establish the idea of choice, or that if one is truly responsible for one’s own nature, then he must have “consciously and explicitly chosen to be the way [he] is” (“Galen Strawson”). So far, the argument from the first premise is that: “(1) If one has free will, then he must not have acted automatically and thus must have acted reasonably; so, (2) if one acts reasonably, then he must act according to what his nature is; so, (3) if one is responsible for what he does, he is also responsible for what he is; so, (4) if one acts according to what he is, then he must have made a choice to be what he is. This is now where the problem lies. The fifth premise is (5) “But one cannot really be said to choose, in a conscious, reasoned fashion to be the way one is mentally speaking, in any respect at all, unless one already exists, mentally speaking already equipped with some principles of choice, P1 – preferences, values, pro-attitudes, ideals – in the light of which one chooses how to be” (“Galen Strawson”). This means that in order for one to have made a choice, there must first have been a principle of choice P1 or a basis of such a choice, or an underlying cause for such a choice. The sixth premise is (6) “But then to be truly responsible, on account of having chosen to be the way one is, mentally speaking, in certain respects, one must be truly responsible for one’s having the principles of choice P1 in the light of which one chose how to be” (“Galen Strawson”). This means that one’s principle of choice P1 cannot do anything and will only remain as it is unless it is acted upon by someone who is deemed responsible for such an act. Therefore, if one makes a choice, then one must have had a principle of choice which he must have necessarily adopted out of responsibility. The seventh premise is (7) “But for this to be so one must have chosen P1, in a reasoned, conscious, intentional fashion” (“Galen Strawson”). Now, this means that if one has adopted P1 as a basis for one’s actions and decisions, then one must have chosen P1 consciously earlier. This leads us now to a particular problem. The eighth premise is (8) “But for this, i.e. (7), to be so one must already have had some principles of choice P2, in the light of which one chose P1” (“Galen Strawson”). This means that if one had consciously chosen P1 earlier, then that choice must have been done out of another principle of choice P2, because the idea of choosing P1 could not have been chosen because of the same P1. This means that if I had chosen to give alms to the poor, then it must have been because I have chosen to be kind (P1). However, my choice of being kind (P1), must have done out of the same principle P1. Therefore, it must have been chosen on the basis of another principle of choice like a choice to follow the teachings of the Bible (P2). What is the point of this all? The ninth premise is (9) “And so on. Here we are setting out on a regress that we cannot stop. True self determination is impossible because it requires the actual completion of an infinite series of choices of principles of choice” (“Galen Strawson”). Based therefore on the preceding premises, all our choices are simply determined by an endless series of principles of choice, which also turn out to be mere choices too. This means that ALL OUR CHOICES ARE MERELY DETERMINED BY OTHER CHOICES AND THUS, THERE IS NO ONE CHOICE THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY FREELY MADE. Therefore, there is no free choice, or one can never be responsible for one’s acts. Now, based on premise (3), which states, “So if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking – at least in certain respects” (“Galen Strawson”), one can therefore conclude that ONE CAN NEVER BE TRULY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT ONE IS, OR FOR ONE’S OWN NATURE. The tenth and last statement is the conclusion: (10) “So true moral responsibility is impossible, because it requires true self-determination, as noted in (3)” (“Galen Strawson”). The Basic Argument of Strawson now concludes by proclaiming that since one cannot make free choices or that ONE DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL, then one cannot be responsible for these choices, and that it is therefore impossible for one to be responsible towards anything that concerns making choices including moral choices. Therefore, ONE CANNOT HAVE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER HIS CHOICES. Based on the Basic Argument of Strawson, as presented above, if there is no moral responsibility, then determinism must not matter to him. If determinism – or the idea that one thing must have been determined by another – were true, then it would simply illustrate the endless causes of one’s choices including one’s moral choices. The truth of determinism is therefore irrelevant to the Basic Argument of Strawson that there is no free will nor there is any moral responsibility. One the other hand, if determinism were not true, and that if choices happen only at random and not out of a succession of causes, then it is still the same because for any random choice that comes up, there must be an underlying P1, which must have been determined by P2, and so on. In short, the falsity of determinism also has no bearing on the Basic Argument of Strawson. Therefore, in simple terms, whether things happen out of a series of causes or randomly, each thing that happens is still eventually done out of a choice, which is based on a principle that is actually just another choice. There is no free will and thus no moral responsibility. Practically speaking, one simply does things – including those concerned with moral issues – not and NEVER because one is free to do so, but because one is only compelled by circumstances or by an endless series of choices. If one were to look more closely into the Basic Argument, it has definitely a number of practical uses. It is a fact that one cannot admit to himself that he is truly free and that he truly exercises his free will, but the Basic Argument makes everyone humble. Everyone, for example, believes that he is free to make choices in his life such as the choice to get married. Nevertheless, when he made the choice of getting married, he did not realize that the choice was not freely done. He must have decided on getting married because he may have made a choice to stay with that person forever or a choice to “love” that person. He now says that one is free to decide whom to love. Nevertheless, if one were to look into every relationship purportedly born out of love, one would then find out that he loved someone simply because she was kind, caring, and so on. In short, the choice to love her was not freely made by him for his choice was made on the principle of kindness, care and other good qualities. If one should go one step further, one would realize that it would be better to choose kind, caring and nice people to love simply because kind, caring and nice people can never hurt him and so he can avoid pain. The Basic Argument of Strawson is therefore practical in silencing the proud ones of the earth who declare their own freedom of choices. Based on the Basic Argument, no one is actually free and every seemingly “free” choice we make must have just been based on another choice that compelled us to make that choice. However, when one does not realize it, one believes he is free. Ironically, this is also the point at which the Basic Argument of Strawson fails. Strawson’s Basic Argument may have a number of flaws too. First, free will must not only be based on reason. If free will is based on reason alone, then there must be an underlying reason or cause for every “free” will made, and thus no will is free from this definition of free will. However, this is only one possible definition of free will. Free will may not be based at all on reason but on emotion. Although the Basic Argument states that no one is free, this freedom must only be reason-based and not emotion-based. One therefore can still be free and can exercise absolute free will as long as he does something unreasonable. For example, if one finds his beloved pet dog dead one morning, one may laugh. Did he have any reason to laugh? He clearly had none, and so nothing could have possibly caused him to laugh at a death, and so by defying reason, one was able to make a free choice. If asked, “Why did you laugh?” he would simply answer, “I don’t know. There is no reason for it.” This is free will. Another instance where the Basic Argument fails is the idea of assuming an infinite series of choices. Therefore, if one makes a choice 1, and if choice 1 was made from another choice 2, it does not mean that choice 2 was also done out of a third choice 3, for one does not know if choice 2 was done not by virtue of reason or by virtue of emotion, just like what was stated above. A third argument against the Basic Argument of Strawson is that it assumes the same nature for all human beings, and he does not seem to point out differences in the location or other factors with which the choice was made. What if there is one unique person in this world who suddenly thought of killing a huge number of people, a la Adolf Hitler, for no reason at all? What if there is one person in this world who loves someone but then decides to kill her without any reason? These are instances of free will, because after all, not everyone can be logical and not even everyone would make the power of choice or free will well. One may say that claiming that some things were not done out of reason only implies ignorance of the fact that there actually is reason to do something. Nevertheless, an assumed ignorance of something cannot prove the necessary existence of that thing. This means that just because I believe that some things are not done out of reason, then it does not follow that I am simply ignorant of the existence of reason, and it also therefore does not follow that reason really exists. Why is Strawson assuming that all people are governed by reason? Because he believes a priori that reason must exist. If he were open-minded enough, he would have thought about what would happen to his Basic Argument if one day, everyone just lost their so-called power of reason. This is actually the same problem that an atheist encounters when he meets a strong theist. Since the strong theist, who is being compared to Strawson here, already has a preset notion that God exists no matter what happens, then he builds his world like this: (1) All people who believe in God know God; and that (2) All people who do not believe in God simply does not know God. This strong theist may claim to be making very logically sound arguments when in fact he does not realize that he has already assumed, in both statements above, that God exists no matter what happens. This is the same with Strawson, who has assumed that all choices must have been and must be done out of reason. This problem with Strawson’s argument and the previous one too are actually a good reason to be humble enough to realize one’s own narrow-mindedness despite proclamation of open-mindedness, and to be consistent with one’s goals and opinion. Indeed, some people may not actually know what they are saying – like the one who once said, “I am free to choose whoever I want to be my wife AS LONG AS SHE IS A CHRISTIAN.” Nevertheless, the criticism of the Basic Argument of Strawson is a call for everyone to sometimes avoid convention and to do one’s best to sometimes act beyond reason. This means that even without a reason, one may freely do what he wants to do – one may hope, pray to, love and trust others even if he had no reason to do it, or even if he did not want to do it. Moreover, even without a reason, one may decide to feel what he wants to feel regardless of the circumstances, even if he did not want to do it. These moments may not be practical or beneficial to him. Nevertheless, these are the very moments where he may realize that he indeed has “free will” or even just an imperfect version of it. As long as man believes he is a slave to reason, then he will never realize his power to have free will. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited “Galen Strawson.” n.d. InformationPhilosopher.com. 3 May 2012. Read More