GROUNDS OF

MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY
 “
"There is no absolute or free
will; the mind is determined to
wish this or that by a cause."
― Baruch Spinoza, Dutch
Philosopher (1632-1677)
 Hard determinism is a philosophical position that consists of two main

claims:

HARD 1. Determinism is true; and

DETERMINISM 2. Free will is an illusion.
 Hard Determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly

determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine

free will or ethical accountability.

HARD
DETERMINISM It suggests that these events are likely to happen due to an action that has

taken place earlier, and that no amount of further information could or

should change the facts in any way.

 Soft Determinism (also known as Compatibilism) is the theory that human
HARD
DETERMINISM
behaviour and actions are wholly determined by causal events, but human

vs
free will does exist when defined as the capacity to act according to one's

nature (which is shaped by external factors such as heredity, society and

SOFT
DETERMINISM upbringing).

(Compatabilism)
 The distinction between “hard determinism” and “soft determinism” was

first made by the American philosopher William James (1842-1910). Both

HARD
positions insist on the truth of determinism: that is, they both assert that
DETERMINISM
vs
every event, including every human action, is the necessary result of prior

causes operating according to the laws of nature. But whereas soft

SOFT
DETERMINISM
determinists claim that this is compatible with our having free will, hard

(Compatabilism) determinists deny this. While soft determinism is a form of compatibilism,

hard determinism is a form of incompatibilism.

 Hard determinists think that all human actions are causally determined by

the laws of nature and initial conditions. At any moment, the state of your

brain and your environment together with the principles that govern the

HARD
behavior of matter necessitate the way that you will act.

DETERMINISM In addition, hard determinists think that the causal determinism of all

human actions means that no human actions are free. Your computer is a

complicated machine, and you don't think it is free. You are much more

complicated, but you too are a machine, and you lack freedom as well.
 ◦ The standard definition of hard determinism states that no event or

action takes place with the individual's choice, and it is completely

determined.

◦ The belief is that the future is determined by past actions, and every

action has a cause.

IN SUMMARY ◦ The future is, thus, a causal result, and no individual choices will

change it.

◦ Human beings are not responsible at all for their actions, as they

have no will or power to act on their own, and that their actions are

the effect of certain predetermined causes.

 EXAMPLE 1:

Assume that a woman has killed her partner because he left him for another

woman. If logic were to be believed, the woman should be punished

severely because she has no right to kill her partner because he left her for

another woman. No denying that the man was morally wrong, but the law

does not give the woman the right to kill him. In this case, hard determinism

argues that the woman was not morally responsible for her actions, as this

was bound to happen because of the past actions of the man that caused

the event to happen.

 EXAMPLE 2:

Many religions hold a view that certain events are bound to happen, come

what may. However, perhaps, certain actions might prevent the severity of

those events or the pattern of occurrence.

Hard determinism is in favor of point one, while completely ignoring point

two. On no account does it even consider that free will could be a possible

choice to shape the events of the future.

 EXAMPLES:

Consider a simple example of a man who is driving erratically and meets

with an accident due to an ongoing collision with a tree.

As a normal person, what do you think is the reason why the man got into

the accident?
 ◦ One forces himself to accept things without considering the other

alternatives.

◦ If one opposes the existence of free will, it makes no sense to him to

try to do anything at all, the way he wants to. He is under the

Criticisms supreme belief that irrespective of his actions, the results are going

to be the same. So why work or take any effort at all?

◦ The right for justice and punishment against the guilty would be

unachievable.
 1. Individual liberty is the primary political value
2. Justice is then determined by the Non
Aggression-axiom
Libertarianism - All acts of aggression against the rights of others are
considered unjust

3. Skepticism towards the government.

Strength
1. Strong principle on paper
 2. In practice, there are a lot of
complications.
Weakness
- Morals
- Regulation is important
 Latin word, "ego" meaning "I"
EGOISM Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative
position.
 Moral egoism claims I morally ought to perform
MORAL some action if and only if, and because,
EGOISM performing that action maximizes my
self-interest.
 Kantianism, utilitarianism, and common-sense
morality require that an agent give weight to the
MORAL
interests of others. They sometimes require
EGOISM
VS. uncompensated sacrifices, particularly when the
OTHER loss to the agent is small and the gain to others is
PHILOSOPHIES large.
Ethical egoism relies on self-interest.
 1. Each person needs the cooperation of
others to obtain goods such as defense or
MORAL friendship.
EGOISM
RATIONALE
 2. If I act as if I give no weight to others,
others will not cooperate with me.
MORAL
EGOISM
RATIONALE
 3. If, say, I break my promises whenever it is in
my direct self-interest to do so, others will not
accept my promises, and may even attack me. I
MORAL do best, then, by acting as if others have weight
EGOISM (provided they act as if I have weight in return).
RATIONALE
 It has to start with ‘me’.
MORAL
Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions
EGOISM
BOTTOMLINE whose consequences will benefit the doer
can be considered ethical in this sense.
 1. Extreme ethical egoism is self-defeating.
2. Faced with a situation of limited resources,
MORAL egoists would consume as much of the
EGOISM resource as they could, making the overall
PROBLEMS situation worse for everybody.
3. Ethical egoism and standard moralities will
diverge in some cases.