Are people really responsible for their actions? This depends, of course, on the way that people think of themselves and the amount of freedom we have. Why? Well because when we have responsibility to do something and we chose to do it, it is our responsibility. However if you are not free to do something and has no choice what so ever to do it, then you do not have responsibility to do it, because you cannot stop what you are doing, because you are not free. Another aspect to look at for responsible action depends on our intentions, or what made us did that action. To do a responsible action, the person doing it must intend to do the action.
If we follow Sartre's idea of freedom, then we are responsible for all our actions. Sartre is the father of existentialisms and is quite famous for his idea of absolute freedom, where everything we do is our choice and that we are always responsible for our actions.
“We are ‘condemned to be free’; there is no limit to our freedom, except that we cannot cease being free”1
This is called existentialisms. Existentialisms however does not put into context of causality, because, according to Sartre, there is no such thing as causality. So in this sense all our actions are responsible. Unfortunately Sartre’s idea of freedom, does not work in the real world, because your mind will always be effected by outside influence, such as our emotions for that person, or if we are distracted during the time.
Causality is the main point of Determinism. Determinism is the philosophy, where all events are triggered by other events that are triggered by other events, so on and so forth. In this sense, no matter what people do, they will do what they have been determined by past events to do. To give an example of this, we shall look at the Loeb case.
“In 1924, two teenagers (Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb) were tried for the murder of a 14-year-old in Chicago. They were defended by the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow , who argued against the boys being given the death penalty... Darrow argued that they were so much a product of their upbringing that they could not be held responsible for their actions and that they should be locked up to protect society, but not executed as responsible for their actions:”2
As mentioned by the quote, it is not the criminal that is at fault, because they did it for the reason that is how the society made them. In this sense none of our action is a responsible actions because no one have any say about what they do. Their actions are forced, into them by causality. In short we are cogs in a machine that is our universe. This would mean that there are no grounds to punish someone, because they cannot help doing what they do. I believe otherwise. We are a system, that is caused by causality and cause causality, by choosing. We have freewill. That is what makes us human. We are free in ourselves, because we believe we are free.
Alright, we, humans, are free. What does that have anything about the responsibility of our actions? When someone is free, we have the ability to choose what we do, and thus what our intentions are. Intentions are very important to an action. To hold someone responsible for an action, that person will need to have an intention to do the action. For example, if someone was riding a car peacefully, and someone jumped out from no where and was hit by the car, the driver cannot be held responsible for his or her actions.
If the driver, however, did not call for an ambulance, then he is responsible for that action, or more accurately the lack of action. The driver’s intention, if he or she did leave the victim behind, is to save him or herself. That is a responsible action, because the driver knew that the victim was hurt, but put into consideration of his or her own personal safety first.
That scenario is a simple one, and in real life it is not that simple. A more complex scenario would be in the context of World War II. Did all of the Germans intend to make the victims of the Holocaust suffer by not trying to stop the Nazi? Surely, they ought to know about it. Of course not. Some of them did not know where the Jews and Gypsies went. Others have the intentions to save themselves. Yet people blame them for not trying to stop the Nazi. To intend to do something a person must have knowledge about the action.
In the other hand can you do something and not intend the consequences? If you want to kill someone by blowing up a building, do you intend the death of the other people in the building? By not fighting against the Nazi, does the Germans intended the Holocaust to happen, because it is a consequences? Some of this people would enthusiastically answer, yes, they are responsible. Then when someone gets a job, as a teacher, designer, or engineer, does he or she intended for the person who get rejected to be rejected? It’s often that these thoughts are buried in the mind, and the knowledge is there, but often, to make themselves feel better people ignore these consequences. However, because there is knowledge of the consequences, it is intended.
Can someone be held responsible for their actions when they are drugged, drunk, or brainwashed? Many would argue that if drunk, that person can still be held responsible for his or her actions, because it is that’s person’s intention to get drunk. However, what if someone slipped some alcohol into that person’s drink without that person knowing? What then? Is that person still responsible for his or her actions? The division between responsible and not responsible is often depends on how drunk is that person, and whether or that person intended to drink. In conclusion, to do a responsible action you must be able to create decision when you are aware of the consequences.
Brainwashing is rather trickier than that though. Using the Nazi as an example again, we can see the extend of a successful brainwashing. Most Nazi soldiers are brainwashed to see a Jew as an animal. Did they intend to torture and kill men, women, and children? After all, to them they are not killing men, women, and children. To they are killing filth and animals, at least that is their believe, and indeed, they didn’t intend to kill men, women, and children, and therefore they are not responsible for that action.
People with mental conditions, such as kleptomaniacs, complicate the problem with intentions. When a kleptomaniac steals, does he or she intend to steal, or is it a compulsive action? As the kleptomaniac have the ability to stop the compulsive action, and because the kleptomaniac did not intend to not steal, he or she intended intend to steal via intention through consequences.
While some parts of a responsible action are sound, critical thinking; it is not all that is required to do a responsible action. Keep in mind that doing a responsible action is different from doing a moral action. For someone to do a responsible action, that person will need a knowledge of the consequences of the action, the intention to do that action, and the freedom to do that action.
Reference
1. Leslie Stevenson, David L. Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature (New York, Oxford University Press, 2004), 182
2. Greg Dewar, Oxford Revision Guides AS & A Level Religious Studies: Philosophy & Ethics (Great Britain, Oxford University Press, 2002), 127
posted by Jinx at 7:13 PM
94 comments
