'Humans do not have moral responsibility.' Discuss. (35)
This essay was done under timed conditions, and given 31/35. (Teacher's comments in red.)
The answer to whether humans have moral responsibility is reliant upon whether humans have free will. This is because if we have free will, as stated by libertarianism, we are free to choose our actions and therefore have complete moral responsibility, whereas determinism would argue the opposite - if all of our actions have been determined, then it would be unfair to hold us responsible for them. Clarence Darrow was an American lawyer who was able to show the strength of the determinism argument, saving the murderers of a 14-year-old boy from the death penalty. He argued that the murder was purely ingrained within the boys' nature, and therefore they had no control of their actions. This forms the basis of hard determinism, and provides a very strong, and empirically provable, case in support of the fact that we shouldn't be held morally responsible for our actions. "Great start."
Hard determinism states that everything we do is the result of a chain of cause and effect that goes back into infinite regress. Every decision we make has been caused by external factors, and we have no control over this. Spinoza stated there is "no absolute free will", and Darrow agreed, stating "we are in the hands of nature". The justification behind this argument fundamentally lies with physics - we see from Newtonian physics that everything in the universe is affected by cause and effect, so why should human behaviour be any different? We can see this is true of behaviour in animals from Pavlov and Skinner's psychological experiments, supporting behaviourism. The fact that Pavlov was able to show classical conditioning take place is clear empirical evidence that behaviour can ultimately be controlled by stimuli, and if we are able to manipulate the stimuli, we can control behaviour. John Watson developed this point in relation to humans, suggesting that if he was given a set of infants, he would be able to control their environment to the extent that he would be able to mold them into specialists/professions of his choosing. If we are to accept behaviourist theories when considering moral decision-making, it seems very logical to suggest that our decisions have been influenced by external factors, not only from conditioning and society, but Pinker also puts forward the concept of biological determinism, stating that our behaviour is influenced and even controlled by our genes. All of this evidence comes together to support the determinist viewpoint that there are so many factors that influence and control our behaviour that we really do not have any say in what we do. Therefore we cannot be held morally responsible. This argument is strong due to having so much empirical evidence in the form of psychological experiments and scientific laws, therefore is one commonly held. However, there is a question as to whether scientific evidence is really appropriate when considering an issue such as free will. If free will did exist, it would be metaphysical, and as with any other metaphysical concept, we would not be able to empirically prove it to be true. "Good AO2".
Libertarianism, on the other end of the spectrum, uses this to criticise hard determinism, and instead puts forward an argument for free will that is much more appealing to our intuitions. Libertarianism states that we do have free will, and therefore should be held completely morally responsible for our actions. Libertarians deny that causation should apply to human behaviour. Instead, we are completely free to choose what we want. While there is no empirical evidence for this, there is some support in the fact that we feel guilt and regret when we do something wrong. These feelings suggest that we had the option to do something else, but we didn't. The fact that we had that choice means that free will must be true to an extent. If this is true, then we should accept full mroal responsibility for our actions, as there is nothing to blame other than ourselves for the decisions that we make.
However, it is highly unlikely that we can ever make a decision that is completely free, with no external influences. For this reason, the position of soft determinism seems much more probable, stating that determinism and libertarianism are not only compatible, but also necessary aspects of one another in order to be comprehensible. Compatibilism recognises that determinism does not necessarily rule out free will, therefore it could be very possible that we have free will within choices that have already been constrained. As stated by Schopenhauer, "man does what he wills, but cannot will what he wills", suggesting that while our choices may have been determined, we still have the ability to make out own decision within these choices. For this reason, compatibilism states that we still have an element of free will, therefore can be held morally responsible, to an extent. Hume states that free will is the "absence of constraint", so we are free unless physically constrained. This then has the implication of us being morally responsible unless we are physically unable to choose. For example, an example used by Ayer explained that kleptomaniacs are compelled to steal, meaning even if they choose not to, their physical instincts would take over and they would steal anyway. A compatibilist would not say that the kleptomaniac should be held responsible, as though they had free will, they were not actually free to carry out their decision, just as someone who can't swim shouldn't be held responsible for not saving a drowning child.
While compatibilism is also difficult to prove empirically, Ayer took a different approach to justifying soft determinism. He believed that by definition, we must have free will due to the possibility of us having an option. He stated that while out actions may be determined, we are free "just in case if we wanted to do otherwise, we would have". For this reason, he stated that the statement "I have free will" is tautologous, and therefore just as analytically true as the statement "all bachelors are unmarried men". Compatibilism is also very strong in the way that it adopts both the strengths of hard determinism and libertarianism. It accepts the principle of causation and therefore the empirically-proven behaviourism, while also appealing to our intuitions of being able to freely make decisions. However, compatibilism is a very convenient middle ground between hard determinism and libertarianism. It aims to merge two very different positions, and it seems unlikely that they can both be true.
However on balance, I feel compatibilism is still the strongest position. It takes into account that humans are definitely determined by external factors, but recognise that we still have the ability to make decisions, as Searle stated, "there is a clear gap between having reason to do something and actually doing it." Therefore it can be said that we should be morally responsible for our actions, as long as we are physically free to have a choice, and not physically constrained.
Mark/comment:
AO1: 20/21, AO2: 11/14, so overall: 31/35 - A+
"Brilliant! Almost a model essay - the only weakness being that your line of argument is only apparent in the 2nd half of the essay. Otherwise, v. well done."
Monday 8 December 2014
A2 philo: 'life after death is impossible.' discuss.
‘Critically assess the view that life after death is impossible.’ (35)
This essay was given 32/35 - A*.
There is much conflict concerning whether life after death is possible, but the idea that is impossible is commonly put forward by monist or materialist philosophers, including Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins. If the above statement (that life after death is impossible) is accepted, this brings with it several implications to philosophy and religion as a whole. Not only will all dualist theories have to be rejected, due to the rejection of the soul being immortal and living on beyond death, but religion as a whole should be abolished. If life after death is impossible, then so is the entire metaphysical and spiritual world that is a fundamental basis for all religion, including the existence of a God or other higher being. Without these, religion no longer has any foundations, and therefore can be disregarded. I personally agree that life after death is impossible, and shall explain my reasoning within this essay.
Firstly, Gilbert Ryle would agree that life after death is impossible, defining dualism as a “category mistake”. By this, he meant that philosophers who believe in the fundamental distinction between mind and matter are confusing two different logical types, and in actual fact mental and physical states are one and the same. He refers to the theory of the separation of the mind and body as the “dogma of the ghost in the machine”, explaining that there is no hidden entity (the ‘mind’) operating within our mechanical ‘body’, but instead our mental processes are simply a way of explaining our physical actions. For this reason, he adopts the monist approach that when our body dies, we die completely. There is nothing left of us to live on, and for this reason life after death must be impossible.
A very similar approach to this is the biological reductionism of Steven Pinker. A cognitive scientist and psychologist, Pinker accepts the findings of modern neuroscience which proves that everything can be reduced to biological explanations. We may feel that we only act as a result of our mind willing us to do something, but in actual fact the explanation for every physical action can be seen to be sourced from the brain. Pinker highlights the fact that using structural MRI and PET scans, neuroscientists are able to see that “every form of mental activity gives off metabolic signals”, which then travel along neural pathways in the brain and stimulate physical activity as a response. Nothing about this requires any metaphysical or spiritual input, rendering any beliefs of a mind or soul completely unnecessary and hence illogical. Pinker states that “when the brain dies, the person goes out of existence”, thus we can conclude, with huge amounts of supporting scientific evidence, that life after death is indeed impossible.
On the other end of the spectrum, Descartes presents his theory of dualism, and from this claims that life after death is not only possible, but also certain. Unlike Ryle and Pinker, Descartes firmly believes that the mind and body are entirely separable and very different entities. Through his use of the a priori argument ‘cogito ergo sum’, Descartes suggests that we can even be more certain of the existence of our mind than our body, especially as we can witness the body dividing/decaying, but we “cannot understand a mind except as being indivisible.” Being heavily influenced by Platonic concepts, Descartes used this idea to develop a syllogism to supposedly prove the immortality of the soul. He stated that if something cannot be broken down into composite parts, it must be immortal. Therefore as the mind cannot be broken into composite parts, the mind must be immortal. This leads on to Descartes’ certainty in life after death. If the mind is immortal but the body is mortal, then the mind must live on beyond the death of a person’s body. Therefore some form of afterlife is logically necessary if one is to accept the previous premises of the Cartesian theory. However, I feel Descartes’ argument is particularly weak as while he does claim to prove the existence of the mind through a priori logic, he lacks any empirical evidence to support either that the mind does exist or that it is immortal. As stated earlier, science is instead able to support the claim that when a person’s body dies, they completely cease to exist. Using ‘Ockham’s razor’, it would be far more logical to accept this simple explanation than unnecessarily over-complicating the issue.
However while Ryle and Descartes seem to lie on opposite ends of the spectrum concerning the possibility of life after death, there are several other philosophers who adopt less extreme dualist or monist views.
Hick, for example, is often considered a ‘soft materialist’, as while he argues in the direction of materialism, he also believes there is an afterlife, but one that is physical rather than spiritual. Rejecting the common Christian belief that a person’s soul is immortal and this is what is resurrected, Hick proposes that upon the death of our current bodies, a ‘replica’ of our body is made and placed in a special, separate place of existence. This ‘replica theory’ therefore accounts for life after death, while avoiding all the problems associated with dualism and body-soul interactions. While the theory seems to be largely a leap of faith, Hick states that we need the resurrection world in order to “fulfil the human potential”, which apparently “does not usually occur within the space of a single earthly life”. If our lives do continue in an ongoing “karmic wave” as stated by Hick, we will have much more time to realise and fulfil our God-given intention, a concept which is very compatible with the soul-making theodicy of Irenaeus. However, there are some very fundamental weaknesses of Hick’s theory. Firstly, by stating that we will immediately be replicated into another realm upon death, Hick seems to be ignoring the question of punishment or judgement. If we are all replicated, then we all have a chance to live again, no matter what sins we have committed in our past lives. Furthermore, Vardy raises issues with the continuity of Hick’s ‘replicas’. Despite the replica being physically identical and also thinking they are the same person, Vardy doesn’t think this sufficiently solves issues raised with personal identity. For example, if a copy of the Mona Lisa was made that was identical even at a molecular level, it is unlikely that this copy would be considered the exact same as the original, and equal in value. The same could be said of people: just because a replica is physically the same, even with the same thoughts, it is still not the same person. By considering this fairly fatal flaw in Hick’s argument, it is easy to disregard his theory altogether, returning to the proposition that life after death is indeed impossible. Ockham’s razor could once again be used here, as if there is evidence to suggest that we cease to exist when we die, there is no need to add on unnecessary explanations, as the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Dawkins is another key scholar to consider when debating the possibility of life after death, however unlike Hick, Dawkins is much more in agreement with Ryle and Pinker than Descartes. While he agrees with the materialist view that there is no distinction or separation between the mind and soul, Dawkins does believe that there is some mental activity, but that this has come about through evolution. He states that everything can be explained through DNA and genes, and that rather than having a ‘soul’, every emotion and action we express is a result of evolutionary ‘consciousness’. For this reason, Dawkins does not quite fit into the biological reductionism of Pinker, as while he does state that everything we do is a result of our DNA, he thinks that we have evolved to develop some form of non-physical consciousness in order to benefit ourselves and in order to survive, a theme which he particularly emphasises in his book, ‘The Selfish Gene’. When describing the process by which animals developed consciousness, he stated that the good or bad results of a good or bad action will cause us to either repeat or stop doing the action, therefore enabling us to choose how to behave in the future. While people argue that this process still seems to be a conscious decision, and therefore does suggest the existence of the mind, Dawkins refutes this. His point was that we do not need any kind of spiritual input to train ourselves in this way, it is all as a result of biological processes, including the replication of DNA, that results in the evolution of our brain to know how to act. Therefore this is yet another successful rejection of the dualist distinction between the mind and body, thus also drawing the conclusion that life after death is impossible due to the lack of an immortal spiritual entity within us.
In conclusion, while there have been several arguments claiming to prove the certainty of the afterlife, they are all based upon assumptions and clearly lack empirical evidence. On the contrary, science and valid logic have been utilised to support the more materialistic and monist end of the spectrum, making the arguments of Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins that life after death is impossible much more plausible. I find Pinker’s input into this discussion among the most valuable, as he puts forward clear scientific fact and “empirical discovery” that can certainly not be disputed. The fact that we are able to see the brain as an explanation for everything we do should enable us to completely disregard all theories concerning any aspects of the metaphysical world. As Ockham’s principle states, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” There is no need to fabricate theories on the soul when we have all the explanation we need, and therefore I strongly believe we should simply accept the scientific evidence and works of biological reductionists to prove once and for all that life after death is impossible.
This essay was given 32/35 - A*.
There is much conflict concerning whether life after death is possible, but the idea that is impossible is commonly put forward by monist or materialist philosophers, including Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins. If the above statement (that life after death is impossible) is accepted, this brings with it several implications to philosophy and religion as a whole. Not only will all dualist theories have to be rejected, due to the rejection of the soul being immortal and living on beyond death, but religion as a whole should be abolished. If life after death is impossible, then so is the entire metaphysical and spiritual world that is a fundamental basis for all religion, including the existence of a God or other higher being. Without these, religion no longer has any foundations, and therefore can be disregarded. I personally agree that life after death is impossible, and shall explain my reasoning within this essay.
Firstly, Gilbert Ryle would agree that life after death is impossible, defining dualism as a “category mistake”. By this, he meant that philosophers who believe in the fundamental distinction between mind and matter are confusing two different logical types, and in actual fact mental and physical states are one and the same. He refers to the theory of the separation of the mind and body as the “dogma of the ghost in the machine”, explaining that there is no hidden entity (the ‘mind’) operating within our mechanical ‘body’, but instead our mental processes are simply a way of explaining our physical actions. For this reason, he adopts the monist approach that when our body dies, we die completely. There is nothing left of us to live on, and for this reason life after death must be impossible.
A very similar approach to this is the biological reductionism of Steven Pinker. A cognitive scientist and psychologist, Pinker accepts the findings of modern neuroscience which proves that everything can be reduced to biological explanations. We may feel that we only act as a result of our mind willing us to do something, but in actual fact the explanation for every physical action can be seen to be sourced from the brain. Pinker highlights the fact that using structural MRI and PET scans, neuroscientists are able to see that “every form of mental activity gives off metabolic signals”, which then travel along neural pathways in the brain and stimulate physical activity as a response. Nothing about this requires any metaphysical or spiritual input, rendering any beliefs of a mind or soul completely unnecessary and hence illogical. Pinker states that “when the brain dies, the person goes out of existence”, thus we can conclude, with huge amounts of supporting scientific evidence, that life after death is indeed impossible.
On the other end of the spectrum, Descartes presents his theory of dualism, and from this claims that life after death is not only possible, but also certain. Unlike Ryle and Pinker, Descartes firmly believes that the mind and body are entirely separable and very different entities. Through his use of the a priori argument ‘cogito ergo sum’, Descartes suggests that we can even be more certain of the existence of our mind than our body, especially as we can witness the body dividing/decaying, but we “cannot understand a mind except as being indivisible.” Being heavily influenced by Platonic concepts, Descartes used this idea to develop a syllogism to supposedly prove the immortality of the soul. He stated that if something cannot be broken down into composite parts, it must be immortal. Therefore as the mind cannot be broken into composite parts, the mind must be immortal. This leads on to Descartes’ certainty in life after death. If the mind is immortal but the body is mortal, then the mind must live on beyond the death of a person’s body. Therefore some form of afterlife is logically necessary if one is to accept the previous premises of the Cartesian theory. However, I feel Descartes’ argument is particularly weak as while he does claim to prove the existence of the mind through a priori logic, he lacks any empirical evidence to support either that the mind does exist or that it is immortal. As stated earlier, science is instead able to support the claim that when a person’s body dies, they completely cease to exist. Using ‘Ockham’s razor’, it would be far more logical to accept this simple explanation than unnecessarily over-complicating the issue.
However while Ryle and Descartes seem to lie on opposite ends of the spectrum concerning the possibility of life after death, there are several other philosophers who adopt less extreme dualist or monist views.
Hick, for example, is often considered a ‘soft materialist’, as while he argues in the direction of materialism, he also believes there is an afterlife, but one that is physical rather than spiritual. Rejecting the common Christian belief that a person’s soul is immortal and this is what is resurrected, Hick proposes that upon the death of our current bodies, a ‘replica’ of our body is made and placed in a special, separate place of existence. This ‘replica theory’ therefore accounts for life after death, while avoiding all the problems associated with dualism and body-soul interactions. While the theory seems to be largely a leap of faith, Hick states that we need the resurrection world in order to “fulfil the human potential”, which apparently “does not usually occur within the space of a single earthly life”. If our lives do continue in an ongoing “karmic wave” as stated by Hick, we will have much more time to realise and fulfil our God-given intention, a concept which is very compatible with the soul-making theodicy of Irenaeus. However, there are some very fundamental weaknesses of Hick’s theory. Firstly, by stating that we will immediately be replicated into another realm upon death, Hick seems to be ignoring the question of punishment or judgement. If we are all replicated, then we all have a chance to live again, no matter what sins we have committed in our past lives. Furthermore, Vardy raises issues with the continuity of Hick’s ‘replicas’. Despite the replica being physically identical and also thinking they are the same person, Vardy doesn’t think this sufficiently solves issues raised with personal identity. For example, if a copy of the Mona Lisa was made that was identical even at a molecular level, it is unlikely that this copy would be considered the exact same as the original, and equal in value. The same could be said of people: just because a replica is physically the same, even with the same thoughts, it is still not the same person. By considering this fairly fatal flaw in Hick’s argument, it is easy to disregard his theory altogether, returning to the proposition that life after death is indeed impossible. Ockham’s razor could once again be used here, as if there is evidence to suggest that we cease to exist when we die, there is no need to add on unnecessary explanations, as the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Dawkins is another key scholar to consider when debating the possibility of life after death, however unlike Hick, Dawkins is much more in agreement with Ryle and Pinker than Descartes. While he agrees with the materialist view that there is no distinction or separation between the mind and soul, Dawkins does believe that there is some mental activity, but that this has come about through evolution. He states that everything can be explained through DNA and genes, and that rather than having a ‘soul’, every emotion and action we express is a result of evolutionary ‘consciousness’. For this reason, Dawkins does not quite fit into the biological reductionism of Pinker, as while he does state that everything we do is a result of our DNA, he thinks that we have evolved to develop some form of non-physical consciousness in order to benefit ourselves and in order to survive, a theme which he particularly emphasises in his book, ‘The Selfish Gene’. When describing the process by which animals developed consciousness, he stated that the good or bad results of a good or bad action will cause us to either repeat or stop doing the action, therefore enabling us to choose how to behave in the future. While people argue that this process still seems to be a conscious decision, and therefore does suggest the existence of the mind, Dawkins refutes this. His point was that we do not need any kind of spiritual input to train ourselves in this way, it is all as a result of biological processes, including the replication of DNA, that results in the evolution of our brain to know how to act. Therefore this is yet another successful rejection of the dualist distinction between the mind and body, thus also drawing the conclusion that life after death is impossible due to the lack of an immortal spiritual entity within us.
In conclusion, while there have been several arguments claiming to prove the certainty of the afterlife, they are all based upon assumptions and clearly lack empirical evidence. On the contrary, science and valid logic have been utilised to support the more materialistic and monist end of the spectrum, making the arguments of Ryle, Pinker and Dawkins that life after death is impossible much more plausible. I find Pinker’s input into this discussion among the most valuable, as he puts forward clear scientific fact and “empirical discovery” that can certainly not be disputed. The fact that we are able to see the brain as an explanation for everything we do should enable us to completely disregard all theories concerning any aspects of the metaphysical world. As Ockham’s principle states, “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” There is no need to fabricate theories on the soul when we have all the explanation we need, and therefore I strongly believe we should simply accept the scientific evidence and works of biological reductionists to prove once and for all that life after death is impossible.
Mark/comment:
AO1: 19/21, AO2: 13/14
"Very well written. What comes through most is the confidence you have in the ability to select and deploy various scholarly views.
You've got the right balance between AO1 and AO2 - well done!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)