Moral Responsibility

Normally, the topic of moral responsibility comes at the end of a some long read in a philosophy book. It is the conclusion that finally ends the meat of the ideas that were discussed before it. "Ok, this is what we have, so what does it mean for ethics?" Here, the ethical conversation moves to the foreground in the following way: moral responsibility is impossible.

Before you disregard this idea as being overwhelmingly radical and therefore easily dismissable, let me remind you that this is not an original argument. And as a source, I refer to The Basic Argument, as it is explained in The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that acting in accordance with morality is an intrinsic part of our being, as I will show with a description of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

First, the Basic Argument:
1. Nothing can be causa sui--nothing can be the cause of itself.
2. In order to be morally responsible, one would have to be the cause of itself.
3. Therefore, nothing can be morally responsible.

Now, the argument is certainly valid; however, it needs clarification, especially in regards to the second premise, which holds the most weight, and is the most debatable. But let's begin chronologically.

Premise 1: Nothing can be the cause of itself.
Certainly, that which is pure matter can not create itself from nothing. The rocks which sit under the foundation of my building did not come to be when its metaphysical essence decided it wanted corporeal existence. This is indubitable. But what about those of us that are more than pure matter? Of course, this is getting into a much larger debate (what does it mean to be a human being? Am I mind and matter, or is mind just the functioning of my body? Am I made up of both physical and metaphysical elements? Only physical? Only mental?), but we will assume, for the purpose of this discussion that when speaking ontologically about our nature, that it is dualistic. That is, there is body and there is mind--they are somehow connected, but as to how, we are unaware.

Now, taking this assumption that one aspect of our make-up is metaphysical, is it safe to say that even that is not the cause of itself? In most reasonable respects, the metaphysical aspects of a human being are dependent on the physical. With exception for theories about ghosts and other supernatural spirits, the soul cannot exist without the body. The mind cannot exist without the matter. And as the physical cannot be the cause of itself, so too the metaphysical cannot be the cause of itself.

(One point of departure here lies with Jean-Paul Sartre. Any significant objection to the first premise and the conclusion that is brought with the second, must originate with a Sartrean idea about the ability to authenticate oneself. Again, for the purposes of this discussion, we will disregard his arguments).

Premise 2: In order to be morally responsible, one must be the cause of itself.
Is this really true? Do I have to originate myself in order to be guilty of a crime? Imagine that I murdered Mr. Carlos and in the witness stand I justified my actions by saying, "But your honor, my mother brought me into the world. If she had not done so I would never have fed Mr. Carlos through a wood-chipper. So clearly, you ought to hold her responsible."

Of course, this seems absurd. For, my mother could of course cite her mother as responsible and so on and so forth. Unless we want to finally conclude that God is responsible for all evil in the world (wait that sounds pretty attractive, actually), then we must draw out this premise's other purpose, which shows that the result is the necessity of actualizing a different kind of infinite regress, which is impossible.

In certain mental aspects I must be the cause of myself. Strawson elucidates:

"But to be truly responsible for how 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. 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."

The third premise follows from the first two and, as has been shown, the first two are sound.

Even if this argument, in its incredible simplicity, were corrupt, I maintain that moral responsibility is impossible. Impossible may not be the right word. "Fake" is better. Despite being one of the most debated topics in history (and in the history of philosophy), there are certain aspects of morality that almost everyone adheres to. The golden rule, for example: do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Respect your elders. Women and children are the first to board the life boats (unless you're a feminist. Then you're happy to sink to the bottom of the Atlantic if it means you weren't treated special because of your sex). But what are all of these? And who are you to say that I should obey them? Shouldn't you be something greater than me in order to command that I follow your rules? And I speak ontologically--your being ought to be greater than mine in order to expect me to follow the social rules that you suggest. But you are not greater, or even different. You are made of the same material that I am made of and have no say over what I choose to do.

Thomas Hobbes outlined the arrival of moral responsibility in Leviathan. Though, his purpose is to show how it saved us from a deranged existence of theft, murder, and aimlessness. But the point I wish to make is that, in his account, morality is fake. It is a social construct, and I mean that in a pejorative term, as in, anything that is a social construct is disingenuous, inauthentic, and for all extensive purposes, meaningless.

The State of Nature
At the beginning of human existence people took what they want, lived where they wanted, ate what they desired to eat, and fornicated with whom they desired to fornicate. It was every man for himself. What determined your right to any object in the world was your ability to acquire it and defend it. So men came together to form a society which protected the group's rights over those of the individual. But in order to do this each man was required to give uphis Right of Nature.

In this way, moral responsibility is insurance. It is socially constructed insurance for the rich and weak to protect themselves from the poor and strong. It is a an attempt to guarantee a predictable life. But get over your desire for a predictable life, and is living according to moral responsibility worth sacrificing your natural rights? I think not.