Research Related to the Question of Moral Responsibility

The question of moral responsibility seeks to know whether one should be held responsible for their actions and inactions. Thus, it questions whether one should be praised or blamed for what he or she has done or failed to do. Two perspectives come to mind when this question arises: the determinist and the freewillist views. In this paper, I will defend the view of the freewillist from a determinist point of view, using the argument of Ortega. I will begin by explaining the determinist and freewillist views.

Then, I will proceed with the argument of Ortega, using it to argue in defense of the freewillist view. Finally, I will show why the freewillist’s view is superior when the question of moral responsibility is to be answered.

“Are we free? Do we possess something akin to will? Or are events causally conditioned, as claimed by determinists? Or do they occur by chance? What is the relationship between determinism, free will, and Ortega’s argument? These are questions that come to mind when a question needs to be answered.”

The question seeks to understand the relationship between human nature and moral responsibility. It inquires about the basis of moral judgment and the criteria on which a person should be held responsible for their action and omission, particularly in terms of punishment or praise. The most dominant perspectives in response to this question generally come from determinists and proponents of free will.

The determinist believes that all things are causally conditioned such that they could not be otherwise. Thus, the cause of things was already determined to be so and could not be otherwise. According to the determinist, much of what happens to us is outside of our control. In other words, a specific set of circumstances shapes each and every action, which in turn determines what happens to us. The determinist view focuses on the idea of causality, which is the relationship between cause and effect. However, examining the argument, it implies our will and choices are already determined. This leads to the denial of free will, and hence we may not be responsible for blaming or praising the actions and inactions of an individual. Let us illustrate this: two cars, A and B, are coming from the opposite direction.

The driver of Car A was texting on his phone. Suddenly, Car B had to swerve off the road, crashing into a nearby shop and killing a 7-year-old boy. In this situation, a determinist would argue that the accident resulting in the death of the 7-year-old boy was not caused by Car B swerving. Instead, they insist it was due to the driver of Car A not paying attention. If the driver of Car B had continued on his path, he could have crashed into Car A, which could have led to damage and potentially the loss of his own life. This viewpoint suggests that the cause of the accident was already determined and beyond the control of the driver of Car B. The driver could not have acted otherwise and therefore may not be held responsible–he is not the true cause. If the driver of Car B swerved to save his life, does that imply he could have acted differently? Taking a determinist approach to life could be problematic.

On the other hand, freewillism is the view that not all things are causally conditioned, so they could be otherwise. The freewillist believes that although there are some antecedent factors out of an individual’s control, such as place of birth, our will is free. Hence, the conduct of man expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by any antecedent factors, whether external or internal. In other words, we are self-determined. Referring to the illustration given in the determinist view, the freewillist would argue that although there are some antecedent factors out of the control of the driver, as far as the driver of car B was able, he could have done otherwise by not swerving towards the seven-year-old boy; thus one has free will.

According to Ortega, man has no nature. His argument is that if we refer to ‘nature’ as a fixed, unchanging, pre-ordained essence of man prior to his/her existence, as argued by the Essentialists, then man has nothing like that. This is because man is not like the stone – a thing whose nature is already given, fixed, unchanging, and about which it can do nothing. Humans are not like stones with a pre-fixed essence or nature. Man can alter whatever has been given by the past through the choices he makes. For example, Adwoa Mansa, born into a poor family, can change this circumstance through the choices she makes as time passes.

Analysing the argument of Ortega, he posits that man has no inherent nature; rather, each man must create his existence through the choices he makes. He further expounds by arguing, “At every moment of my life, diverse possibilities open before me: I can do this or that. If I do this, I shall be ‘A’ the moment after; if I do that, I shall be ‘B.’ At this moment, the reader may stop reading or may continue. Regardless of the importance of this article, the reader will be ‘A’ or ‘B,’ depending on whether they choose to stop or continue reading. Thus, man is the entity that shapes himself.” Ortega continues, “Among these possibilities, I must choose. Therefore, I am free. But let it be understood, I am free by compulsion, whether I wish to be or not. To be free means to evolve, to be other than what one was, to be unable to remain the same forever. Man invents a life program for himself.”

Man has created his existence at every single moment by the choices he or she makes. If it’s true that man has no nature, then he indeed has free will. Illustrating this is Kwame, who is 30 years old. He was born into a poor family and lost his parents at the age of 15. Despite these circumstances, Kwame worked hard, took his education seriously, and is now the Chief Executive Officer of a company. From the argument of Ortega, if essence precedes existence – where essence (nature) is referred to as a fixed, unchanging, pre-ordained essence of a man prior to his or her existence – then Kwame has nothing like that. What Kwame had was his past (history) which is fixed and unchanging. Kwame was able to become a CEO of a company.

How would that be possible if things are causally conditioned, which in turn determines what happens to us without free will? In Kwame’s situation, freedom (the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants) played a critical role. Kwame’s decisions were a result of choices he made. The determinist would argue that those choices were not free and were compelled; however, since Kwame was able to do otherwise, then, he has free will. Thus, Kwame had choices to work hard and become the CEO, or not to work hard and remain poor the next moment, or join a robbery gang, steal and go to jail, among others. He had these choices to make and since he was able to decide on one and not the other, Kwame has free will. Although some antecedent factors, both external and internal may have compelled him to decide on working hard to become the CEO of today.

From the above detailed analysis, freewillism — the belief that the course of the future is not entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature — is required for moral responsibility, blaming or praising people for their actions. This is because diverse possibilities were made available to choose from and, given that one has the capacity to select one of them, any subsequent action, though it may be compelled, could have been otherwise.

However, there are both a priori and empirical arguments against freewillism. The most radical a priori argument is that free will is not merely contingently absent, but is impossible. Thus, free choice requires an impossible infinite regress of choices to be the way one is in making choices. Responding to this,

In conclusion, Ortega’s argument is that man has no nature. What man does possess is his or her past and a future full of possibilities. Whatever he or she becomes in this future depends on the choices made. His argument was used to defend freewillism, positing that since one was able to decide on a particular choice and not the other, he or she would not have done so without freedom, even though such a decision may be compelled by external or internal factors.

Did you like this example?

271

11