Moral Responsibility and Determinism: A Philosophical Inquiry
Moral Responsibility and Alternate Possibilities
According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP), one is morally responsible for an action only if one could have done otherwise. PAP asserts that the ability to do otherwise, and thus the existence of alternate possibilities, is a necessary condition for holding an agent morally responsible for an action.
For example, if someone has the choice to kill or spare someone’s life, they could be held morally responsible for their actions. However, if their life is predetermined, then there is no way they could have avoided killing that person. Therefore, they did not make a moral decision to kill; they had no control over their actions and cannot be held morally responsible.
A Counterexample to PAP?
Consider the following scenario:
- Jones decides to do X.
- Jones is responsive to a threat telling him to do X.
- When Jones acts, he still acts based on his earlier decision, not the threat.
- If Jones had decided not to do X, the threat would have been sufficient to make him change his mind and do X.
There don’t seem to be alternate possibilities concerning X for Jones. Either Jones initially decides to do X or not. If he decides to do X, then he does X. If he decides not to do X, then he still does X (due to the threat). Yet, there does seem to be moral responsibility when Jones earlier decides to do X. Jones isn’t doing X because of the threat, but because of his own decision. So, Jones appears to be morally responsible for X, yet lacks alternate possibilities. Is this a genuine counterexample to PAP?
Determinism and Incompatibilism
An agent A has control over an act X only if A has alternatives to X. If determinism is true, then A has no alternatives to X. Since free will is tracked by control, it follows that determinism would preclude free will. Thus, we arrive at incompatibilism.
Therefore, if an agent has control only if there are alternate possibilities, then an agent has moral responsibility only if there are alternate possibilities.
Epicurus, Determinism, and Consequentialism
Epicurus believed that a unique material element, a “divine fire,” is responsible for everything in the cosmos and resides within us, controlling our fate. A psychological determinist would argue that a person’s psychological makeup determines how they must act, and they can’t change that makeup. Physical determinism posits that at any given moment, all future states of the universe are fixed by the laws of nature.
Considering these perspectives, because we cannot control our makeup and the “divine fire” within us, our fate is predetermined, and we lack freedom of choice; we merely follow a chosen path. However, Epicurus also believed in a “swerve” in atoms, allowing us to deviate from our predetermined path.
From a consequentialist standpoint, even if doing the “wrong thing” brings more immediate satisfaction, the long-term consequences are worse. Therefore, actions are dictated by the potential consequences. This involves making decisions based on bodily pleasures, whereas Socrates believed that pure knowledge should always be prioritized.