The Paradox of Moral Responsibility | Sam Harris

Perhaps you‘ve also seen the twitter exchange between Sam Harris and M. Hijab about free will and moral responsibility, I wanted to talk about this, because M.Hijab mentions a point that is often brought up in defense of free will.

The claim is, that without free will, it‘s impossible to hold anybody morally responsible for their actions. If we tell people they don’t have free will, they will behave irresponsible and give into their most primal urges, without regard for others.

First it has to be pointed out, that the question whether or not free will exists is completley seperable from whatever effects the absence of free will might have on a society. So it‘s not actually a valid argument in favor of free will.

If we really care about the truth, the consequences of discovering it have to be dealt with later. Even if that truth is uncomfortable, and is at odds with our current world view.

Now that being said, I don‘t think acknowledging the absence of free will would have the large consequences on our societies, that Hijab fears. The reasons for punishing somebody would still remain. In most modern societies we punish people to disincentives unwanted behaviour, not to seek retribution. Similar to how a dog can be taught not to urinate on the carpet through positive and negative reinforcement, a persons’ decision to rob a bank or steal a car, can be thwarted by the threat of a long prison sentence.

And to have your behaviour be affected by punishment doesn’t require free will. On the contrary, the threat of punishment is simply one more domino piece in the causal chain of the universe, the same causal chain that the potential criminal is also a part of.

If we take a closer look at this concept of moral resoponsibility, there is an interesting paradox to be discovered.
We don‘t hold 3 yo responsible for their wrong doing in the same way hold an 18 yo responsible. The reason we don‘t blame a toddler even for actions that cause great harm, is because we can’t expect him to know any better. To say somebody ought to behave a certain way first requires that he can. By the same logic we don’t hold insane people responsible for their actions, because they can’t regulate their impulses, they‘re in a way just a victim of their own psychology.

Now when it comes to an adult of sound mind, we say he really should have done otherwise, because he could have. So moral responsibility seems to be proportional to their capabilities.

The more competent a person becomes, the more blameworthy she is for not living up to their moral duties.
But here lies the paradox. Consider by analogy, an amateur golfer trying to make a 5 five foot put. It’s quite easy to make it from that close, he misses it makes sense to say, you really should have made that put. Come on focus, keep your shoulders back. If it’s Tiger Woods trying to make the put, missing this put seems out of the realm of possibility. He makes this in his sleep. So what do we say about Tiger Woods, if he does in fact miss the put? What does it mean, to tell him, that he should have made it? In this case a missed put says the least about him, missing this is completely out of character. Who are we to tell him that he should have made it, if he simply didn’t?

If we bring this observation back to the topic of morality, and apply it to somebody we can consider the Tiger Woods of the moral domain, sombody like Mother Theresa, we come to an interesting conclusion.

If Mother Teresa instead of tending to the sick, suddenly decided to grab a knife and stab the person closest to her, it say almost nothing about her as a person. Not stabbing an innocent person is a 5 foot put, it‘s a lay up for Mother Theresa. Something must have seriously gone wrong with her brain to have done this, maybe a brainhemorage or a virus, whatever it is, let‘s get to the bottom of it. What does it mean to say that she should have behaved differntly, if she simply didn’t? So it suddenly seems that in the case of the most moral person, it makes the least sense to hold hold them responsible.
The conclusion of this observation, namely that if both the toddler and mother theresa, the least competent and most competent are not to be held responsible, it may be that the concept of moral responsibililty is flawd. The reason for praising and blaming, handing out awards and prison sentences is simply to affect each others behaviour and to guide us towards the good and away from the bad.

It may be difficult at first to recognize this paradox about. I recommend you listen to Sam Harris’ latest Podcast on this topic, to get a more in depth explanation

[marvinedwards]

We assign responsibility to the most meaningful and relevant cause of a harmful action. Our goal is to correct that cause, so that the harm is not repeated. And this is where free will comes in, to help identify the cause:
1. If the bank teller hands over the bank's money to the robber because he is pointing a gun at her, then we easily correct her behavior by simply removing the coercive threat. We hold the guy with the gun responsible for her behavior.
2. If the bank teller is insane, and believes that the bank's money is rightfully hers, then we hold her mental illness responsible for her behavior, and we correct it by medical and psychiatric treatment.
3. If the bank teller is sane, and decides that she will benefit by emptying her cash drawers into her hand bag, and leaving town on her lunch break, then we hold her deliberate choice responsible for the robbery, and attempt to correct her future choices by prison and rehabilitation.

In all cases, our corrective actions are justified by the harm done. And we hold responsible the most meaningful and relevant cause of the harm, whether it be caused by coercion, by insanity, or by a choice of her own free will.

[andnor]

"if you have no free will, then you have no responsibility for what you do... and neither do i for my response to your actions.. nor any one else"
- I can not remember who, this just stuck with me.

[peterv]

To be honest, I think all of this moral and free will stuff is just useless talking. I don't care in the slightest if there is free will or not. If I, through some magic, would know the answer for certain, nothing in my life would change either way. Free will to me is an useless physics question.

Also I think all talk about morality is useless as well. If there would be a god, it might make a difference for getting to hell or not, but I can't know if there is a god. But my decisions are based on my (partially biological, partially cultural) feelings about morality and honour and of course on the effects they would have. I won't steal because I don't want to be punishef and also because I feel it's dishonourable. I think morality is subjective but I simply don't care. What would objective morality even mean without a god? If being objectively evil has no effect (besides those it also has if it would be subjective) it again doesn't make a difference.
You might want to check out de Maistres "on sovereignty", it has a good chapter where he talks about philosophy (I think chapter 12 or 13)