My second question is when is it okay to say someone is not responsible for their actions? This is in reference to the conundrum of determinism and the law and whether or not someone whose actions are determined is still responsible for any crime they commit and if they should be punished. There are the obvious cases where someone is out of their mind but what about when someone is in their right mind. Can we argue that brains are wired incorrectly? Can we argue that if something is determined then the person is not responsible?
If we made these arguments then no one would be held responsible for their actions and no one would be praised. Our society would have no order. While punishment is not always the answer if we simply accept that no one is responsible for anything then not only would there be no punishment there would be no active reform or consequences. I believe that whether or not the world is determined people should be held responsible for both good and bad actions.
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
ReplyDeleteDeterminism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
I agree with you. I mention above that I do not believe that punishment is always the answer. What I was mostly trying to get at is whether there is a time when someone in their right mind, who has done something our ethic system deems wrong, can be excused from their actions. I do not think there really is any clear answer but if no reprimands were made then there would be a lack of order or desire to do ethical acts.
Delete