fleeting-thoughts

Category: Uncategorized

  • If We Live in a Physically Determined Universe, Are We Morally Responsible For Our Actions?

    If we live in a physically determined universe, are we morally responsible for our actions?

    I have often pondered the extent of determinism, not too heavily (avoiding an existential crisis) however I keep seeing it being brought up in the media and in everyday life. Recently, I’ve been watching the show Bojack Horseman, a show about a washed up 90’s sitcom star living in L.A. The character of Bojack (an anthropomorphic horse) is always searching for happiness and meaning, however is constantly self-sabotaging and destroying his own life and the life of others. He often blames his past and bad childhood for his current actions. In the season 3 finale, he quotes, “I can’t keep lying to myself saying that I’m gonna change, I’m poison. I come from poison, I have poison inside me, and I just destroy everything I touch, that is my legacy.” He uses his past and his parents as an excuse for his behavior and inability to change. And while I agree that your past can affect you, it doesn’t define you. And the show continues to prove that point using characters around him who are constantly changing and improving despite their past. After watching this episode, I started wondering, how much is pre-determined? Can we actually be blamed for our actions if we are just products of our environment? To what extent is Bojack Horseman at fault for his actions when he is just a product of his abusive childhood? These were the questions that were flowing through my head as I clicked on a CrashCourse Youtube video describing determinism vs freewill. This video presented me with the idea of “soft determinism” which is the idea that determinism is compatible with free will, meaning we do have moral responsibility for our actions. After further research and many conversations with family members during dinner, I was able to form my opinion on this subject.

    To what degree are we responsible for outcomes we did not fully choose? Oedipus is a great example of fatalism, an older doctrine of determinism, where the future is determined and no action can change its outcome. The tragedy goes that when Oedipus was born, it was prophesied that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Trying to avoid that fate, his parents abandoned him on mount Cithaeron where he was found by another man and wife, who raised him as their own. Once Oedipus was grown, he learned of his prophecy and in trying to avoid it, fled from his home, not knowing the man and wife raising him weren’t his biological parents. In a fit of rage he kills a man, his father, and marries his widow, his mother, ultimately fulfilling the prophecy. The tragedy teaches us that there is no escaping fate. However, if we apply soft determinism to this tragedy, his future didn’t have to be inevitable. Between each event that happened to him, he had a number of decisions he could have made. While those decisions are largely predetermined by his past actions, experiences, temperament, and desires, they are still there, a constrained version of free will. What if he made the decision to communicate with his parents? What if he had his temper under control and didn’t kill his father? If we look at Oedipus’s story from a soft determinism lens, and not a fatalism one, his story could have ended differently. We cannot remove the blame of Oedipus’s actions in this tragedy, but we can look at the circumstances surrounding and guiding each one of his decisions. While we are morally responsible for our actions, the circumstances surrounding the decisions we make are inseparable from moral judgment.  

    While hard determinism argues that it is impossible to have free will, therefore moral responsibility is dissolved, soft determinism (compatibilism) argues that determinism is compatible with free will, meaning we do have moral responsibility for our actions. If you mapped out the life and decisions of one human being from the beginning of their life to the final outcome, and looked back, the line of events would be straightforward; cause and effect. However, if you start from the beginning, in between each event and circumstance, there are multiple decisions in front of you, multiple paths you can take. It might not be complete libertarian free will, however it is a constrained version of that, meaning you always have a choice. There are forces that are constantly and actively operating against our free will; there is never one choice laid out in front of us. Meaning, we can never fully be free from the moral responsibilities of our actions; however the circumstances surrounding those actions are important to note.

    Keep a lookout for part 2!

  • If We Live in a Physically Determined Universe, Are We Morally Responsible For Our Actions? P2

    Continuation of part 1… 

    Looking at the conditions on which we make our decisions is crucial when evaluating the “moral” aspect of moral responsibility. While we are never free from being held accountable for our actions, the degree of which punishment or blame is inflicted upon someone is determined on the circumstances surrounding the incident. In a court of law first degree murder could result in life imprisonment, versus killing someone in self defense which could result in no prison time. While both actions end in the death of another, the consequences dulled out are extremely different as we weigh the moral cost of each action differently. To give a less extreme example, someone who is born into poverty with no access to education or a job might resort to stealing in order to get by. The moral responsibility needed to be taken by a person stealing out of necessity is different from the person stealing unnecessarily. While stealing might not be the only option for a desperate person, it is an understandable choice. There isn’t hard determinism behind that action, not every person struggling will steal. However the choice is one driven by that need to get by, but that’s what it is, a choice, made out of a constrained version of free will.    

    Using the excuse of determinism to relinquish moral responsibility is as destructive as Oedipus marrying his mom. While one’s surroundings, mental state, family, religion, ideologies, and more can help guide their decision making, nothing is finite. Even though cause and effect is a natural occurring cycle, humans are capable of more complex ideas and thoughts. We follow laws closely related to the world however are not completely tethered to them. Allowing for a form of constrained free will that steps out line with the rest of natural laws set in place. 

    So what does this have to do with Bojack Horseman’s actions? The verdict is that he IS responsible for his actions even though he had a rough childhood.   Healing and positive change are always possible even if the process is hard or messy. Therefore, you cannot blame every harmful action in the present on something in the past because Bojack Horseman, like all of us, are capable and responsible for our own change.