DOCSLIB.ORG

Hard Determinism, Remorse, and Virtue Ethics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hard Determinism, Remorse, and Virtue Ethics The Southern Journal of Philosophy (2004) Vol. XLII Hard Determinism, Remorse, and Virtue Ethics Ben Vilhauer Claremont McKenna College Hard determinists hold that moral responsibility is incom- patible with determinism, that determinism is true for all human actions, and that human beings are consequently not morally responsible for any of their actions.^ It is often objected that, since hard determinists reject the idea of moral responsibility, they have to reject our current practices of punishing wrongdoers. The concepts of desert and moral responsibility go hand in hand—one cannot deserve to be punished for something unless one is morally responsible for it. So if no one is morally responsible, no one deserves to be punished, and punishment cannot be justified if it is not deserved. This objection extends not just to punishment inflicted upon wrongdoers by others but also to punishment wrongdoers inflict upon themselves. Remorse is often taken to be a kind of self-inflicted punishment, a way of imposing emotional suffering upon oneself because one takes oneself to deserve it. Proponents of this objection think it is absurd to claim that we have to reject all these ways of responding to wrongful actions, and since they think hard determinists have to claim this, they think we should reject hard determinism. This objection depends upon a retributive interpretation of punishment. According to retributivism, punishment must be justified in terms of what the agent deserves. Hard determinists can respond to this objection by rejecting retributivism and adopting consequentialism about punishment instead.^ According to consequentialism, punishment must be justified in terms of its beneficial behavioral consequences. For example, imprison- ment has the beneficial behavioral consequences of preventing Ben Vilhauer is Visiting Assistant Professor at Claremont McKenna College. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 2002. His recent publications include "Can We Interpret Kant as a Compatibility about Determinism and Moral Responsibility?" (British Journal for the History of Philosophy) and "On a Tension in Diamond's Account of Tractarian Nonsense" (Philosophical Investigations). 547 Ben Vilhauer wrongdoers from committing more crimes, and possibly deter- ring them from repeating their crimes after they are released (and possibly deterring others too). The value of these conse- quences "outweighs" the pain of the punishment. The conse- quentialist approach to punishment appears to give hard determinists a way to justify whatever punishments are really needed to keep society functioning. But remorse cannot be given an adequate consequentialist justification. Sometimes remorse has beneficial behavioral consequences, but sometimes it does not. The cases in which it does not have beneficial behavioral consequences pose a problem for hard determinism. As I will go on to argue, remorse is connected in a privileged way with understanding that one has done something wrong. For this reason, it is important for hard determinism to accommodate remorse even when it does not have beneficial behavioral consequences. This is a challenge for hard determinism, but I will argue that it can be met if we incorporate virtue ethics into hard determinism.^ I will conclude by arguing that the virtue-based account of remorse to be presented here is defensible even if we suppose that we do have free will after all. In other words, though hard deter- minism requires this account of remorse, this account of remorse does not require hard determinism. To begin, we must consider how remorse functions when it does have beneficial behavioral consequences. First, remorse can modify wrongdoers' behavior so that they do not repeat wrong- ful acts in the future.'' Second, remorse can prompt wrongdoers to behave in special ways toward the people they have wronged, for example, by trying to make amends, and by expressing their remorse.^ First, remorse can prevent wrongdoers from repeating wrongful acts because experiencing suffering as a result of acting in some particular way tends to modify agents' behavior so that they do not act in that way again. We can see this phenomenon in its simplest form in the way a child who feels pain after touching a hot stove does not touch hot stoves again afterwards. We can think of remorse as operating in a similar way. Remorse is a state of emotional suffering that is consciously focused on morally relevant facts about one's wrongful actions. Said differently, it is suffering that has those morally relevant facts as intentional objects, such that one suffers from the consciousness of one's wrongful actions. One cannot experience remorse without consciously representing morally relevant facts about one's wrongful actions as the cause of one's suffering.^ (For the moment, let us leave open the questions of what the morally relevant facts are, which are the intentional objects of remorse, and what the nature of the suffering involved in remorse is.) 548 Hard Determinism, Remorse, and Virtue Ethics Remorse's privileged connection with morally relevant facts about one's wrongful actions makes remorse different from other kinds of suffering wrongdoers often experience as a result of those actions. Consider imprisonment. Prisoners can experience the suffering of imprisonment without thinking of it as caused by the crime that got them into prison. Prisoners often come to think of their imprisonment as caused by the prison guards, the police, and the courts—that is, the penal system. And it would seem that the more prisoners think of their imprisonment as caused by the penal system, rather than by their crimes, the less likely imprisonment will be to keep them from repeating their crimes. That is, if they think of imprisonment as caused by the penal system rather than by their crimes, they may believe that the best way to stay out of prison is to stay away from the penal system rather than to stop committing crimes. The suffering of remorse cannot be psychologically dissoci- ated in this way from the unethical action that is its original cause. And it is natural to assume that, all things being equal, the more clearly human beings understand the causal relationship between something that causes suffering and the suffering that thing causes, the more they will tend to avoid the thing that causes suffering. For this reason, remorse might be thought to be among the most effective kinds of suffering for preventing wrongdoers from repeating their wrongful actions. Now let us turn to the second way remorse can produce beneficial behavioral consequences. Remorse can cause wrong- doers to behave in special ways toward the people they have wronged. Remorse can cause a wrongdoer to try to alleviate the suffering of the people he has wronged, that is, to try to make amends. Remorse can also cause a wrongdoer to express his remorse to the people he has wronged. The wrongdoer thereby communicates the fact that he is suffering from the wrong too, and thereby bears the burden of the wrong along with them. (This is of course merely a metaphor, but it is indispensable for thinking about remorse.) Often, when the people wronged feel that the wrongdoer bears the burden of the wrong along with them, it makes their own suffering easier to bear. At this point we can consider the kind of remorse that poses the challenge for hard determinists, that is, remorse that does not have beneficial behavioral consequences. Remorse some- times has an effect on the wrongdoer's inner life but no effect on the wrongdoer's outward behavior. Wrongdoers sometimes feel remorse, and form intentions to mend their ways in response to that remorse, but fail to act on those intentions. Also, wrongdoers do not always have the opportunity to make amends or express their remorse. But when remorse does not have any "payoff" in beneficial behavioral consequences, there isn't anything to "outweigh" the pain of the remorse, so a 549 Ben Vilhauer consequentialist justification cannot be provided. How can hard determinists hold that it is appropriate for wrongdoers to feel the pain of remorse if it has no beneficial behavioral con- sequences and wrongdoers do not deserve to experience this pain? Hard determinists might just accept that it is not appro- priate for wrongdoers to experience remorse if it has no beneficial behavioral consequences. But this is unsatisfying, because of the connection between experiencing remorse and understanding morally relevant facts about one's wrongful actions. Other forms of suffering that wrongdoers might experience in response to their wrongful actions do not seem to be linked to understanding that one has done wrong in any special way. Wrongdoers can be made to feel physical pain and fear, for example, without understanding why what they did was wrong. This cognitive relationship between remorse and morally relevant facts makes the preservation of remorse within hard determinism of special interest. Determinism doesn't imply that we shouldn't understand our wrongs, even if it does imply that we do not deserve to suffer for our wrongs. So if part of understanding that we have done something wrong is feeling remorse, then it might be appropriate to feel remorse when we have done something wrong, even if we do not deserve to feel remorse. But is it in fact true that remorse is part of understanding that we have done something wrong? Retributivists about remorse are likely to object here. A retributivist might argue that understanding that one has done wrong and feeling remorse are entirely separate. We feel remorse when we understand that we've done wrong only because we believe that we deserve to feel remorse when we do wrong. Retributivists might hold that we can explain what makes wrong acts wrong in deontological terms, as the violation of absolute moral rules. They might then point out that, presumably, one can under- stand that one has broken rules without experiencing remorse, so we must provide an explanatory link between understanding that one has done wrong and remorse.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theoria, 2020, 35(3), 345-364
    Theoria, 2020, 35(3), 345-364 https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.21302 T H E O R I A eISSN 0495-4548 – eISSN 2171-679X 1Free will and (in)determinism in the brain: a case for naturalized philosophy& (Libre albedrío e (in)determinismo en el cerebro: un problema para la filosofía naturalizada) Louis Vervoort*, Tomasz Blusiewicz University of Tyumen, Russian Federation ABSTRACT: In this article we study the question of free will from an interdisciplinary angle, drawing on philosophy, neu- robiology and physics. We start by reviewing relevant neurobiological findings on the functioning of the brain, notably as pre- sented in (Koch, 2009); we assess these against the physics of (in)determinism. These biophysics findings seem to indicate that neuronal processes are not quantum but classical in nature. We conclude from this that there is little support for the existence of an immaterial ‘mind’, capable of ruling over matter independently of the causal past. But what, then, can free will be? We propose a compatibilist account that resonates well with neurobiology and physics, and that highlights that free will comes in degrees — degrees which vary with the conscious grasp the ‘free’ agent has over his actions. Finally, we analyze the well-known Libet experiment on free will through the lens of our model. We submit this interdisciplinary investigation as a typical case of naturalized philosophy: in our theorizing we privilege assumptions that find evidence in science, but our conceptual work also suggests new avenues for research in a few scientific disciplines. KEYWORDS: free will; consciousness; compatibilism; neuroscience; determinism; Libet experiment; naturalized philoso- phy; quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will: Hail and Farewell
    Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism © 2019 The American Humanist Association volume 27 (2019), article 6, 98-124. ISSN 1522-7340 (print), 2052-8388 (online) Free Will: Hail and Farewell James A. Montanye Independent scholar, Falls Church, VA [email protected] This essay traces the evolution of the free will concept, from Plato to the present. It examines interpretations offered by theologians, political philosophers, philosophers of mind and consciousness, neuroscientists, evolutionists, legal scholars, and economists. The essay illuminates the concept’s instrumental use as an artifice for manipulating behavioral adaptations to the scarcity of economic resources. Macroeconomic and ngram data reveal these manipulations as having locked Western civilization into centuries of social and economic stagnation. Keywords: free will, consciousness, economics, prosperity, scarcity, competition, neuroscience, compatibilism, incompatibilism, ngrams “The persistence of the traditional free will problem in philosophy seems to me something of a scandal. After all these centuries of writing about free will, it does not seem to me that we have made very much progress.” John Searle (2007, 37) “A flood of ink has been spilled, especially in the modern era, on how to understand the concept of being able to do otherwise.” Timothy O’Connor (2016) “...the whole arcane issue about free will is a miscast concept, based on social and psychological beliefs held at particular times in human history that have not been borne out and/or are at odds with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of our universe.” Michael Gazzaniga (2011, 219) “...if we no longer entertain the luxury of a belief in the ‘magic of the soul,’ then there is little else to offer in support of the concept of free will.” Anthony Cashmore (2010, 1) [98] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Smilansky-Free-Will-Illusion.Pdf
    IV*—FREE WILL: FROM NATURE TO ILLUSION by Saul Smilansky ABSTRACT Sir Peter Strawson’s ‘Freedom and Resentment’ was a landmark in the philosophical understanding of the free will problem. Building upon it, I attempt to defend a novel position, which purports to provide, in outline, the next step forward. The position presented is based on the descriptively central and normatively crucial role of illusion in the issue of free will. Illusion, I claim, is the vital but neglected key to the free will problem. The proposed position, which may be called ‘Illusionism’, is shown to follow both from the strengths and from the weaknesses of Strawson’s position. We have to believe in free will to get along. C.P. Snow ir Peter Strawson’s ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (1982, first Spublished in 1962) was a landmark in the philosophical understanding of the free will problem. It has been widely influ- ential and subjected to penetrating criticism (e.g. Galen Strawson 1986 Ch.5, Watson 1987, Klein 1990 Ch.6, Russell 1995 Ch.5). Most commentators have seen it as a large step forward over previous positions, but as ultimately unsuccessful. This is where the discussion within this philosophical direction has apparently stopped, which is obviously unsatisfactory. I shall attempt to defend a novel position, which purports to provide, in outline, the next step forward. The position presented is based on the descriptively central and normatively crucial role of illusion in the issue of free will. Illusion, I claim, is the vital but neglected key to the free will problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism Agent-Causal Compatibilism
    152 Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy Determinism Indeterminism Chapter 10 Chapter Hard Determinism Compatibilism Libertarianism Soft Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Soft Compatibilism Event-Causal Agent-Causal Libertarianism Illusionism Semicompatibilism Incompatibilism SFA Non-Causal Impossibilism Narrow Incompatibilism Broad Incompatibilism Soft Causality Valerian Model Soft Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Soft Libertarianism Source Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Cogito Daring Soft Libertarianism (Actual Sequence) (Alternative Sequences) Two-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libertarianism.html This chapter on the web Libertarianism 153 Indeterminism Libertarianism LibertarianismLibertarianism is a school of thought that says humans are free, Determinism not only from physical determinism, but from all the other diverse forms of determinism described in chapter 9. Libertarians believe that strict determinism Agent-Causaland freedom are incompatible. Freedom seems to require some form of indeter- Compatibilism minism somewhere in the decision process. Most libertariansEvent-Causal in the past have been mind/body dualists Soft Determinism who, following René Descartes, explained human freedom by Hard Determinism a separate mind substance that somehow manages to Non-Causalact indeter- ministically in the physical world. Some, especially Immanuel Soft Compatibilism Kant, believed that our freedomSFA only exists in a transcendental 10 Chapter or noumenal world,
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility: an Analysis of Event-Causal Incompatibilism Gunnar Footh Macalester College, [email protected]
    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Philosophy Honors Projects Philosophy Department July 2017 Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility: An Analysis of Event-Causal Incompatibilism Gunnar Footh Macalester College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/phil_honors Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Footh, Gunnar, "Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility: An Analysis of Event-Causal Incompatibilism" (2017). Philosophy Honors Projects. 10. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/phil_honors/10 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility: An Analysis of Event-Causal Incompatibilism By Gunnar John Footh Professor Geoffrey Gorham Department of Philosophy 4/26/17 Chapter 1: Introduction The question of moral responsibility has been around for millenia. What is moral responsibility? How do we define it? What does it mean to be a moral person? This philosophical topic alone has been analyzed and debated among philosophers for centuries. The very existence of the debates over moral responsibility and value theory as a whole evidences the importance humanity puts on answering these moral questions. It is no surprise that these topics are still being discussed and debated today. The moral responsibility-determinism debate is ongoing in contemporary philosophy, and it asks the following question: is moral responsibility reconcilable or compatible with a deterministic universe? Here I will define determinism as causal ​ determinism, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events in conjunction ​ with the laws of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Hard Determinism a Form of Compatibilism?
    PHIL4 17/1/02 06:08 PM Page 81 THE PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM Volume XXXIII, No. 1, March 2002 IS HARD DETERMINISM A FORM OF COMPATIBILISM? JEREMY RANDEL KOONS Libertarianism is ailing. Once the preferred account of free will, it has now fallen into considerable disfavor. Most philosophers are suspicious of libertarian accounts of agent causation and unmoved movers, and are convinced that the opposite of determinism is not freedom, but indeterminism. I think that libertar- ianism’s current low state is entirely justified. I will not argue for this conclusion, as it has been adequately argued elsewhere. This conclusion leaves only hard determinism and compatibilism on the field. Although hard determinism is scarcely more popular than libertarianism, many philosophers seem to reject it, not because of its philosophical implausibility, but because they fear the consequences of its being true. Metaphysicians’ inability to come up with a sat- isfactory compatibilist account is thus a source of worry, and might lead one to fear that hard determinism is true. On their face, compatibilism and hard determinism are very different. Of course, compatibilists and hard determinists agree that the thesis of determinism is true: Determinist thesis (D): Every event (including human actions) has a cause, and the chain of causes leading to any given action by an agent extends back in time to some point before the agent was born.1 Eventually, this chain of causes becomes a question for cosmologists, not for philosophers of free will. But this is where the similarity between compatibilism and hard determinism is alleged to end. The two theories disagree about the truth of a crucial thesis, the compatibilist thesis: 1 Of course, it may be that certain quantum events are uncaused, but as these events do not play a significant role in human psychological causation, they may be ignored for the purposes of the free will debate.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Determinism Al Dente Derk Pereboom, University of Vermont Noûs 29, 1995, Pp. 21-45. Al Dente Means "Firm to the Bite,&Qu
    Determinism al Dente Derk Pereboom, University of Vermont Noûs 29, 1995, pp. 21-45. Al dente means "firm to the bite," and that is how Italians eat pasta. Soft pasta is no more fit to eat than a limp and soggy slice of bread. As soon as pasta begins to lose its stiffness and becomes just tender enough so that you can bite through without snapping it, it is done. Once you have learned to cook and eat pasta al dente, you'll accept it no other way. (Marcella Hazan, The Classic Italian Cookbook, pp. 90-1) The demographic profile of the free will debate reveals a majority of soft determinists, who claim that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, that determinism is true, and that these views are compatible. Libertarians, incompatibilist champions of the freedom required for moral responsibility, constitute a minority. Not only is this the distribution in the contemporary philosophical population, but in Western philosophy it has always been the pattern. Seldom has hard determinism -- the incompatibilist endorsement of determinism and rejection of the freedom required for moral responsibility -- been defended.1 One would expect hard determinism to have few proponents, given its apparent renunciation of morality. I believe, however, that the argument for hard determinism is powerful, and furthermore, that the reasons against it are not as compelling as they might at first seem. The categorization of the determinist position by 'hard' and 'soft' masks some important distinctions, and thus one might devise a more fine-grained scheme. Actually, within the conceptual space of both hard and soft determinism there is a range of alternative views.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will: from Nature to Illusion Author(S): Saul Smilansky Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol
    Free Will: From Nature to Illusion Author(s): Saul Smilansky Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 101 (2001), pp. 71-95 Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Aristotelian Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545340 Accessed: 01-08-2016 15:47 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Aristotelian Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 15:47:04 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms IV* FREE WILL: FROM NATURE TO ILLUSION by Saul Smilansky ABSTRACT Sir Peter Strawson's 'Freedom and Resentment' was a landmark in the philosophical understanding of the free will problem. Building upon it, I attempt to defend a novel position, which purports to provide, in outline, the next step forward. The position presented is based on the descriptively central and normatively crucial role of illusion in the issue of free will. Illusion, I claim, is the vital but neglected key to the free will problem. The proposed position, which may be called 'Illusionism', is shown to follow both from the strengths and from the weaknesses of Strawson's position.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will – Hard Determinism
    Free Will – Hard Determinism 1. Things Outside of Our Control: Holbach begins by noting a number of things that man is not in control of. Man does not: Choose his birth (i.e., the time, place, etc.). Choose his constitution (i.e., genetic make-up). Choose his education and upbringing. (1) Consider the first (our birth). What time period you are brought into, what nation you are born into, what type of government, what sort of religion, what sorts of cultural ideas, what inventions and technology you have access to—all of these factors have an ENORMOUS influence on what sort of person you turn out to be. (2) Consider the second (our constitution). Just by being human, it seems that even many of our desires and inclinations are innate (just BUILT INTO US), and therefore outside of our control. For instance, we cannot CHOOSE to become thirsty. It simply happens to us. Here are some desires that seem to be built into our constitution: Thirst (desire for water) Hunger (desire for food) Tiredness (desire for rest) Sex drive (desire to procreate) The drive to seek pleasure or happiness The drive to avoid pain and suffering Self-preservation (avoiding danger or death) Preservation of loved ones (e.g., the desire to protect our young, which is especially strong in mothers with newborn children) But, there is more. You did not choose your sex, nor your race. These things were just SET at the time of your birth, entirely out of your control. And consider ability: Some people have a natural capacity to be better at athletic activities than others.
    [Show full text]
  • Buddhist Hard Determinism: No Self, No Free Will, No Responsibility
    Journal of Buddhist Ethics ISSN 1076-9005 http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 19, 2012 Buddhist Hard Determinism: No Self, No Free Will, No Responsibility Riccardo Repetti Kingsborough College, CUNY Copyright Notice: Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no change is made and no alteration is made to the content. Re- production in any other format, with the exception of a single copy for pri- vate study, requires the written permission of the author. All enquiries to: [email protected] Buddhist Hard Determinism: No Self, No Free Will, No Responsibility Riccardo Repetti1 Abstract This is the third article in a four-article series that exam- ines Buddhist responses to the Western philosophical problem of whether free will is compatible with “deter- minism,” the doctrine of universal causation. The first ar- ticle (“Earlier”) focused on the first publications on this issue in the 1970s, the “early period.” The second (“Paleo- compatibilism”) and the present articles examine key re- sponses published in the last part of the Twentieth and the first part of the Twenty-first centuries, the “middle period.” The fourth article (“Recent”) examines responses published in the last few years, the “recent period.” Whereas early-period scholars endorsed a compatibilism between free will and determinism, in the middle period the pendulum moved the other way: Mark Siderits argued for a two tiered compatibilism/incompatibilism (or semi- 1 Department of History, Philosophy and Political Science, Kingsborough College, CUNY. Email: [email protected]. 131 Journal of Buddhist Ethics compatibilism) that he dubs “paleo-compatibilism,” grounded in the early Buddhist reductionist notion of “two truths”: conventional truth and ultimate truth; and Charles Goodman argued that Buddhists accept hard de- terminism—the view that because determinism is true, there can be no free will—because in the absence of a real self determinism leaves no room for morally responsible agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysical Freedom and Determinism: an African Perspective
    METAPHYSICAL FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE. By Joyline Gwara Submitted in Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu – Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus. Supervisor: Prof. B. Matolino December 2017. Declaration. I declare that the content reported in this dissertation, unless indicated to the contrary, is my original research and that it has not been submitted simultaneously for another degree or diploma to any other University. Where I have used work by others, I have duly acknowledged. Where other written sources have been quoted, their words have either been re-written with the general information attributed to them having been referenced; or where their exact words have been used, then their works have been placed in Italics or inside quotation marks, and referenced. Name of Student……. Joyline Gwara (213574156). Signed ……………………J. Gwara. Name of Supervisor…….Prof. B. Matolino. i Abstract The study places emphasis on the critical and philosophical nature of the African concept of destiny as it relates to the problem of freedom and determinism. In light of this, it focuses on the problem of freedom and determinism as we have it in Western scholarship. Historically, there are two contrasting schools of thought emerged. These are; the hard determinists, who argue that all events, including human actions are determined by causal laws; and the libertarians who believe that human beings are not determined and possess freewill. In an attempt to reconcile these seeming contrasting views another school of thought emerged, which is, Compatibilism. Compatibilists believes that choice and causal determination of human actions are not mutually exclusive but are compatible.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerful Particulars: the Real Reason the Behavioral Sciences Threaten Criminal Responsibility
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 2 2010 Powerful Particulars: The Real Reason the Behavioral Sciences Threaten Criminal Responsibility Anders Kaye [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anders Kaye, Powerful Particulars: The Real Reason the Behavioral Sciences Threaten Criminal Responsibility, 37 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2010) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol37/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW POWERFUL PARTICULARS: THE REAL REASON THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES THREATEN CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY Anders Kaye VOLUME 37 SPRING 2010 NUMBER 3 Recommended citation: Anders Kaye, Powerful Particulars: The Real Reason the Behavioral Sciences Threaten Criminal Responsibility, 37 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 539 (2010). POWERFUL PARTICULARS: THE REAL REASON THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES THREATEN CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ANDERS KAYE* ABSTRACT The concept “criminal responsibility” plays an important role in Anglo-American criminal law. It is central to our excuse doctrines and provides a foundation for our punishment practices. Nevertheless, legal theorists and philosophers have sometimes argued that it is not appropriate to treat human wrongdoers as responsible actors. An important line of such challenges has been grounded in the behavioral sciences. Inspired by startling findings in psychology, sociology, criminology, neuropsychology, and other behavioral sciences, some theorists and philosophers have argued that these sciences show (or at least imply) that human acts are determined acts, that we therefore do not have free will, and that it is therefore wrong to hold us responsible for what we do.
    [Show full text]