If we live in a physically determined universe, is anyone ever morally responsible for what they do?

My Think Essay Prize submission

Understanding whether moral responsibility exists in a physically determined universe is vital to modern society. As studies conducted by science have been showing a crescent number of data that further corroborate the determinism thesis, the answers to this problem have the potential to reshape the system in which society plays by, shaping our views of justice, inequality, and responsibility.

I argue that in a determined universe no one is ever morally responsible for what they do. Establishing blame or punishment as a consequence of morally wrong actions is therefore deeply unfair. However, I still estimate our moral values and the evaluation of deeds.

By moral responsibility I mean that an individual is the legitimate source of their actions in such a way that they could justifiably deserve praise or blame. This requires not only that actions arise from their own motivations and character, but also that they have control over the creation of those motivations and character. Without such control, responsibility can’t lead to guilt or punishment; otherwise, it would be unfair.

If determinism is true, then human behaviour is the result of the laws of nature and precedent events. This way, it is not on individuals what happened before their existence, and neither is it up to them what the laws of nature are; therefore, the causes of their actions go beyond their control.

In such reality, human behaviour would be utterly dependent on a causal chain of biological, psychological, and social nature. The context in which an individual grows consists of an important factor that allows us to reference back its future actions. For one to hold true responsibility, one should have control over these factors. That is, one should be the causa sui of itself.

As our deeds would have already been predestined, luck is tied to what we call the morality of our actions when we are ruled by determinism. Thus, how could we talk about accountability when the determination of an individual's behaviour is rewarded by luck?

Intentionality consists of a general criteria widely accepted when judging moral responsibility. In the context of a crime, individuals may plead guilty and explain the intentions behind their actions. However, I would suggest that this confession should at all means have no interest. In a deterministic universe judgements can still be conducted regarding the morality of a deed to understand if given action is moral or nonmoral, but we shouldn’t progress to judge moral responsibility for actions, and its consequences. I believe that our moral values should only serve us to imagine an archetype that enables us to understand what kind of actions should be avoided, solely guiding social structurization.

Nonetheless, one might argue that moral responsibility does not require independence from causation, but only that actions appear from one's capacity to respond to reasons. According to this view, responsibility exists when actions reflect the subject's own reasoning, even if those processes are determined.

From my understanding, this objection touches on the possibility of existing moral responsibility in a deterministic universe if the individual has the capability to provoke change in its behaviour on their own. I believe that assuming this action of change is asking way too much of an individual. Besides humans appearing to have capabilities to control their behavior and to decide what to do, the existence of these “powers” or capabilities are rewarded randomly given by the determinants of the world. It requires the existence of virtues such as prudence, discipline and integrity which cultivation is highly instigated by that background talked before. If a person didn’t choose their brain, education and experiences, then their will power, capacity to change, personality and self-control wasn’t also picked out by them. Even the capacity to respond to reasons is itself determined. Is it fair to require change to someone that doesn’t have the capability to change by themselves? As it’s not one’s fault for the ability they receive, then the consequences of it can’t be up to the individual. Therefore, this demand for change can’t be seen as an obligation and that it is incorrect to attribute responsibility.

Morality without responsibility can seem hard at first and accepting this perspective raises the question: if we can’t hold an individual responsible, then should we abandon any hope of change? My answer would be no. We need to hold a positivism view and should always consider the opportunity of change happening. Society needs to focus on creating the conditions for change to occur even if it’s not guaranteed. Maybe the existence of nonmoralities is just a sign of the limitations of our current system. Furthermore, it is vital to substitute punishment by rehabilitation.

A revision of our preoccupations would be indispensable, there would need to be a switch in the way we address the world, by starting to worry about the changes that need to be made to allow the creation of conditions that result in an environment that culminates in the growth towards the inexistence of nonmoral actions and the prosperity of individuals.

I aspire to advertise the importance of the answers of these questions in the education system as this is a context that shapes me daily. Currently, in many systems around the world, education and the evaluation of knowledge is built around the belief that one's success is a reflection of their dedication. For that to be a fair system, everyone must have the ability to find the willpower and discipline to study. The thing is that the discipline and cognitive apprehension that those systems require in order for one to thrive are unevenly distributed. It is therefore unfair to attribute guilt to an individual for their output by this system as they wouldn’t have control over the abilities that help him succeed or fail. If individuals are unable to change on their own, then supporting them is essential. Letting the determined abilities of an individual drive their life success wouldn’t at all solve this. Thus, the need of creating the sense of community where aid is offered.

In the case of determinism being true, moral responsibility as defined can’t be sustained. This does not discard morality, but it changes its use: moral judgement should guide social organization instead of condemnation. Accepting this would require rethinking our current practices. The underlying problem wouldn’t be whether individuals deserve what they do, but how society should respond to it.

As this debate remains unresolved, it’s crucial to remain conceptualizing answers and questioning our understanding in light of determinism. As long as we are uncertain about the extent of human control, we must remain open to rethinking how we judge and respond to others. We need to engage seriously with this problem, working rigorously on the implications of accepting the inexistence of moral responsibility and how society ought to respond.