Moral Responsibility

Just posted a paper on my site critiquing Galen Strawson's argument. He argues that moral responsibility is impossible. Here's an excerpt:

"In order to be responsible for the way you are, say at a given time T3, you had to at an earlier time, say T2, choose how you were going to be. However, at T2, the choice of how to be would be dependent on who you were. Your beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. would determine that choice. So, there would have to be an earlier time, T1, where you choose to have the character that you had at T2. But then, at T1, your character would cause you to make a certain choice. And so on.

You never get to a time where you chose how you would be that didn't depend on an earlier choosing of yours. If you do get to such a point, say when you were born, you cannot be held responsible for how you were at that point. You can only be held responsible for what you choose, and when you were born, you were "given" your desires. They weren't the result of any choice. So, since who we were initially caused us to choose our character again and again, it follows that to blame someone for their current character is equivalent to blaming someone for their initial character. However, since one isn't responsible for their initial character, one can't be responsible for their character at any other time, and hence cannot be held responsible for any act that they commit (given (1)).

...

I think the infinite regress can be stopped when we take into account the fact that praise, blame, reward, and punishment are to be used to change people's desires. These tools work just as well regardless of how those desires got there. It is also important to note that when we blame someone for their present desires, we are blaming them because they are, in part, their present desires. When one says, "You are responsible for your actions" I think it means no more than, "Your character, which can be changed, is the cause of your actions." The infinite regress fails because it attempts to make a distinction between a person and their character. Strawson does this when he says that a person, at a given time, must choose their character. I think there is no distinction to be made and a person is constituted by their character. A person having a bad character is equivalent to the person being bad.

For the paper, go here.

The Divine Tight-Rope Walker

Faith, Hope and Doubt
Louis Pojman

"Suppose you are fleeing a murderous gang of desperados, say the Mafia, who are bent on your annihilation. You come to the edge of a cliff which overlooks a yawning gorge. However, there is a rope spanning the gorge, tied to a tree on the cliff on the opposite side of the gorge. A man announces that he is a tight-rope walker who can carry you on the rope over the gorge. He doesn’t look like he can do it, so you wonder whether he is insane or simply overconfident. He takes a few steps on the rope to assure you that he can balance himself. You agree that it’s possible that he can navigate the rope across the gorge, but you have doubts whether he can carry you. But your options are limited. Soon your pursuers will be upon you. You must decide. While you still don’t believe that the “tight-rope walker” can save you, you decide to trust him. You place your faith in his ability, climb on his back, close your eyes (so as not to look down into the yawning gorge) and do your best to relax and obey his commands in adjusting your body as he steps onto the rope. You have a profound, even desperate, hope that he will be successful.
"This is how I see religious hope functioning in the midst of doubt. The verific person recognizes the tragedy of existence, that unless there is a God and life after death, the meaning of life is less than glorious, but if there is a God and life after death, that meaning is glorious. There is just enough evidence to whet his or her appetite, to inspire hope, a decision to live according to Theism or Christianity as an experimental hypothesis, but not enough evidence to cause belief. So keeping one’s mind open, the hoper plumbs for the better story, gets on the back of what may be the Divine Tight-Rope Walker and commits oneself to the pilgrimage. Perhaps the analogy is imperfect, for it may be possible to get off the tight-rope walker’s back in actual existence and to get back to the cliff. Perhaps the Mafia will make a wrong turn or take their time searching for you. Still the alternative to the Tight Rope Walker is not exactly welcoming: death and the extinction of all life in a solar system that will one day be extinguished. We may still learn to enjoy the fruits of finite love and resign ourselves to a final, cold fate.
...
"But if there is some evidence for something better, something eternal, someone benevolent who rules the universe and will redeem the world from evil and despair, isn’t it worth betting on this world view? Shouldn’t we, at least, consider getting on the back of the Tight-Rope Walker and letting him guide us across the gorge?"

I'm not saying I buy this argument, but it does seem interesting (of course, presuming that there is some evidence for the existence of God).

Louis Pojman

Louis Pojman is a well-known ethicist who has written many good books on the topic. He taught at WestPoint Academy for 9 years before his death. I have read one of his books and found it to be the best introduction to ethics I have read. That being Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th Edition. He died on October 15th of last year of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and hepatitis C. More on his life and death can be seen here.

He has taught me many things about ethics as I'm sure others would say who have read his work. It is fortunate that he existed and it seems left the world a better place than it otherwise would have been.

"I don't want it, therefore they should stop it."

Many people use this argument when it comes to things that will inconvenience them. They shouldn't raise taxes because I don't want to pay them. They shouldn't raise tuition because I don't want to pay it. They shouldn't put a dump in our town because I don't want it. They shouldn't start mining in Sand Canyon because it'll create more traffic (trucks in the mining company) on the freeway and I don't want that. They should stop building more houses in my town because then more people will be here which will cause more traffic. They should lower gas prices because I don't want to pay them. And so on.

However, simply because people or a group of people don't want higher taxes, that doesn't imply that higher taxes aren't necessary. The same goes for dumps. Dumps are a necessary thing and they have to be put somewhere. If they're not put in your town, they will simply be put in another town where the people don't speak up (and of course, it might cost you more taxes because your trash will have to get shipped out further).

It amazes me how people don't bother looking into whether the tax, raise in tuition, dump, or mining, is actually necessary. They don't care if it's done for a good reason. They automatically assume that it's done for a bad reason and therefore, they don't want it to happen.

I would suggest that anyone who is against something because it will inconvenience them to actually look into the issue and see if the measure is necessary (i.e., done for a good reason). If (and only if) it is done for a bad reason (technically, if it's a measure a good person would be against), then one should be against it. Whether or not it inconveniences you or the general public is something of relevance, but is something that (given a good enough reason) can be overridden.