We had argued last class that with
determinism, the presence of accountability would cease to exist. In a way, we
would begin to make excuses for people. However, I think that we will continue
to hold onto the ideas of accountability.
Focusing on the topic of poverty -
there is this limited opportunity for achievement in areas with high poverty.
It is because of this limited opportunity that pressures many individuals to
commit crime. I think that if we come to accept determinism - people will still
be punished, they will still be held accountable for their actions. The
ultimate decision of committing a crime is still held by the individual - no
matter what pressures push them to commit it. There is still a choice.
In a different example, one used in
class, if someone intentionally stepped on your hand and, say, they were a
victim to an abusive childhood or violent tendencies, you would still hold them
accountable. Accountability can also been seen on a personal level, like in
Nancy Sherman’s piece. For soldiers back from war, the accountability is still
there for them – through their own self accountability. They may not be
held accountable by the general public because of their moral ground
of defending of one’s country – but these soldiers take their own punishments like self blame or with disorders like PTSD.
Accountability will continue to be
prevalent in even a deterministic situation because perhaps the reason why we hold on to accountability is
because of what Nancy Sherman has stated in her piece. Hope within people is a “distinct
kind of moral attitude that focuses our attention and energies on pockets of
good will in self or in others…”. We
will continue to hold people accountable because we are let down by their lack
of good will. We hope for the best in other people, so when a person
contradicts their "pocket of good will" – we still hold them accountable for their
actions.
Some may object to the presence of
accountability – stating simply that it has no empirical evidence. Its
existence is something that is intuitive. I would contend that there may not be empirical evidence but it is the
objector that must find evidence to disparage accountability's presence.
For the record, I agree with you that a widespread belief in determinism need not necessarily eliminate belief in moral responsibility and moral judgement.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it is much more likely that people will reject the notion of moral responsibility simply because people in our culture are convinced that moral agency and free will depend on non-causality... rightly or wrongly.
Or to be more clear, people believe that if choices (or more broadly, our conscious thoughts) are caused, it is not free. This intuition is probably what's behind all the anxiety over determinism and free will.
So, unless this widespread cultural belief--that freedom of action is defined by a freedom from causality--changes... a widespread cultural belief in determinism will almost certainly lead to a widespread rejection of moral agency... at least in the traditional, everyday sense.
It is confusing because we are not dealing with one cultural belief but a cluster of closely tied-up beliefs.
Of course the change wouldn't be immediate but eventually I think people really would cease to hold each other morally accountable. That doesn't however mean that we wouldn't punish people we would just justify it differently.
ReplyDeleteIf there were no punishments because everything is predetermined people would commit crimes and such without reservation on the premise that its not their fault since it was predetermined. Therefore we would continue to punish as a form of discouragement against crime rather than because we find the person blameworthy.
I know that at least from our standpoint with belief in morality this is hard to imagine or justify but I believe that that is what the world would really be like.