The Routledge Companion to Free Will Reasons-Responsive Theories
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 29 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Companion to Free Will Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith, Neil Levy Reasons-Responsive Theories of Freedom Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315758206.ch3 Michael McKenna Published online on: 29 Nov 2016 How to cite :- Michael McKenna. 29 Nov 2016, Reasons-Responsive Theories of Freedom from: The Routledge Companion to Free Will Routledge Accessed on: 29 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315758206.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 REASONS-RESPONSIVE THEORIES OF FREEDOM Michael McKenna Reasons-responsive theories of freedom explain free agency in terms of an agent’s sensi- tivity to reasons. An agent who acts freely is responsive to variation in a suitable spectrum of reasons. Because many theorists understand free will in terms of the control condi- tion(s) necessary for moral responsibility, reasons-responsive theories are also frequently cast in terms of theories of the control condition for moral responsibility. Reasons-Responsiveness: An Initial Characterization Consider a familiar case of unfree action: an agent, Handy, washes his hands from an extreme compulsive hand-washing disorder. Suppose Handy gets his hands dirty one day and washes them. It might be tempting to think that in washing his hands, he does so freely and that this consists in his responding appropriately to a good reason to wash his hands. But as it happens, Handy would have washed his hands at the time whether they were dirty or not in response to any number of whacky reasons. He would have washed them if they were clean and he just saw a garbage truck down the street, if some- one within earshot had whispered the word ‘germ,’ or even if, when his hands were truly dirty, doing so would result in his being seriously injured (suppose for some reason that in the circumstances the only way for him to wash his hands requires breathing poison- ous gas). What this suggests is that, in this situation, when Handy washes his hands when they are dirty, it is fortuitous that he does so in response to a good reason. The role of good reasons is not properly integrated with what leads him to action. This in turn suggests that Handy is not in control of his hand washing in a stable way. So he does not wash his hands freely. Contrast Handy with Dandy. Dandy is a bit of a ‘dandy.’ He enjoys fancy dress and a very clean, well-groomed appearance. As such, Dandy might have an idiosyncratic commitment to keep his hands (and the rest of him) super clean—far more so than most normal people with good hygiene. Thus, he fi nds lots of good reasons for washing his hands and few good reasons not to, but his hand-washing is still well-integrated with the full range of reasons animating how he acts. Dandy, for instance, would not risk serious harm to himself just to wash his hands, and while he does fi nd lots of good reasons to wash them, as in keeping with his dandy ways, these many reasons are still related to his overall goals and projects as a sane person. He does not wash them, for instance, just because the very mention of germs causes him to think horrible dirty Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 14:01 29 Sep 2021; For: 9781315758206, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315758206.ch3 MICHAEL MCKENNA thoughts. Suppose, like Handy, Dandy dirties his hands in a situation much like the one Handy was in and so Dandy washes his hands. It seems that while Handy does not wash his hands freely, Dandy does. The cases of Handy and Dandy suggest two related features of a credible reasons- responsive theory. First, to understand freedom in terms of reasons-responsiveness involves an agent’s control in relation to a spectrum of potential but non-actual reasons, and this spectrum comes in degrees . Second, the actual causal processes issuing in free action must involve the agent’s reasons-responsive resources. To explain, consider fi rst the matter of degree. Note that Handy would be regarded as unfree in his hand washing even if there was some sliver of reasons that would get him not to wash his hands compulsively in some situations. If, for instance, a murderer was threatening to kill Handy’s child if Handy washed his hands, or if Handy’s house was on fi re and he were about to be incinerated, he would forgo washing his hands. It is just that the range of reasons to which Handy would be responsive is too limited to be the basis for his being free in any credible sense that would bear on free will and moral responsibility. Now consider Dandy. Suppose that there is some range of reasons to which Dandy would not be responsive but should be, even by his own lights. While he often would wash his hands in response to good reasons, there are a few occasions where even he is a bit reckless and does not wash them. For instance, perhaps he should wash them just before tending to his toddler’s breakfast, but when in a hurry he fails to do so. In this way, he is not perfectly reasons-responsive. Still he is reasons-responsive enough to model his freedom on the spectrum of reasons to which he is responsive. Now consider the matter of the actual causal process. When Dandy washes his hands because they are dirty, we have reason to think that the reasons for hand-washing are related to his rational abilities as an agent and that these abilities function well in playing a proper role in his act of hand washing. This is in part because his adequate degree of reasons-sensitivity is good evidence that Dandy is ‘wired’ in the right way. Handy, by contrast, appears to be driven largely by his compulsion, at least in this sphere of his life. When he washes his dirty hands, there is reason to think that his dirty hands do not even play the right sort of role as a reason for him that is part of the eti- ology leading to his act of hand washing. To the extent that his dirty plans are part of the actual cause of his hand washing, it is by way of a deviant causal process that is not an appropriately rational one, and so is in this way not freedom-conferring. It is likely to be a fl uke or an unreliable occasion for him to give expression to his compulsion. (The issue of deviant as opposed to non-deviant causal processes in the production of action is familiar to those who work on the theory of action. To illustrate, consider a famous case due to Donald Davidson [1963] of a climber who realizes that to survive he must let go of a rope. The thought so unnerves him that he does so, but in a way that was not intentional. Here, he does respond to reasons, but not through a causal process that involves his controlling his action. As readers might suspect, it is extremely diffi - cult in these contexts to nail down in just what non-deviant as opposed to deviant causal processes consist.) Reasons-Responsiveness and the Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism Debate In recent times, reasons-responsive theories are advanced mostly by compatibilists (about both free will and moral responsibility). But the appeal of a reasons-responsive 28 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 14:01 29 Sep 2021; For: 9781315758206, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315758206.ch3 REASONS-RESPONSIVE THEORIES OF FREEDOM theory is not limited to compatibilists; its merits extend beyond any having to do with the metaphysical problems associated with worries about determinism or indeterminism. Some (e.g., Irwin 1980) contend that Aristotle advanced a reasons-responsive theory as a way of explaining how man is a rational animal. And it is plausible to think that Kant required something like reasons-responsiveness—being able to track reasons in support of duty—as a condition for morality actually applying to persons. Historical origins aside, the contemporary appeal of a reasons-responsive theory is in part a matter of accounting for freedom in terms of features of agency that are distinctive of persons . Lots of agents with the capacity for sophisticated goal-directed activity, such as titmice or coyotes, are uncontroversially able to exercise a considerable amount of control over their environments. As such, there is a clear sense in which they possess a certain kind of freedom. But if one seeks a theory of freedom that explains what is distinctive about the freedom available to persons (skeptical worries aside), then it is plausible that this can be found in rational capacities unique to persons.