Free will is about acting according to one’s choice or reason. Philosophers hold various theories about the concept of free will and the moral responsibility attached to it. Galen Strawson has a pessimist stand towards the concept of free will that one behaves or acts in a certain way because of how one is made. Therefore, one cannot be held morally responsible for the actions. However there is an inner consciousness in all human beings which differentiates them from other living beings, and this consciousness convicts one what to do and what not to do. Strawson’s argument that people cannot be held morally responsible for how they act is therefore not strong according to me, considering the concept of dualism.
Strawson as a pessimist believes that nobody is a free agent or free to act since we are made in a certain way, and act according to how we are made. The mental, psychological and emotional aspects of a person lead him to act in a certain way, therefore the person is not free to act, as believed by the determinists. According to determinism, everything happens based on what has happened before and therefore can’t happen otherwise. So I think if one acts according to what will happen anyway, one seems to be devoid of free will. Now if one will anyway act as one is made, it’s not right to hold a person morally responsible for the actions. Because if you hold a person morally responsible for his actions, then he has to be responsible for how he is made also according to pessimism, which is not possible because then the person has to be causa sui i.e. cause of oneself. Nothing can be a cause of itself so one cannot be held responsible for how one is made. So if one cannot be held responsible for how one is made, then the moral responsibility of his actions cannot be put upon him. To put the moral responsibility on a person, one has to also hold him responsible for how he is made.
A person is the way he is because of heredity, experiences in life and circumstances. His actions will be based on these and to change the actions, his very foundation of being will have to be changed which is not possible in totality. A certain mental state of mind can still be transformed by counseling, but the experiences a person has had or his genetics cannot be altered.
As per my understanding Strawson’s argument does assume a materialistic framework. It acknowledges the fact that one is genetically and due to various other factors or events of life made in a certain way. The mind works because of heredity factors, actions are based on experiences which are necessitated for him, and emotional and psychological state is also pre-determined. All this is a materialistic framework. There is no acknowledgment or recognition of a man’s spirit, soul or mind, his ability to rationalize and his inner consciousness. So when a person acts and things happen in a certain way, the factors comprising of what he his made of, are held responsible and not the person himself. And one can only be held responsible for one’s actions, if one creates oneself. Now that I think is impossible as Strawson himself also admits.
I think Strawson’s argument is weak because if I think from the dualistic point of view, a human being is different from other living beings, as he has a mind, spirit and soul. Man can think, reason and rationalize unlike other living creatures. So when a choice has to be made man can think and act. In any situation, man can reason out things, analyse his circumstances, explore the choices he has and then decide what to do. On the other hand a dog or a bird cannot do that. But since man can think before taking a decided course of action, I think it is not wrong to hold him morally responsible for his actions.
However if we see this in the light of dualism, the conclusion will compound in a different way. According to this every human being is a self-conscious agent who has an inner conscience that convicts for a certain decision or action or not. So whenever there is an action one has to take there are some choices from which one can choose and thinking rationally keeping all consequences in mind, one can take the right course of action. When a man acts consciously then he is held morally responsible for his actions.
This also confers man with a free will to act in accordance with reasoning and rationalizing the choices. Free will comprises of factors whether to act in a certain way or not at all. For example, if a person is offered another job, he has to analyze how the new job will be better for him professionally and personally. He can’t just take it by saying “Yes” or leave it by simply saying “No”. He has to take time, think, weigh all the pros and cons and then make the important decision. His decision may result in a complete failure or a big success and blessing for him which time will reveal. And for any kind of consequence he alone will be held responsible. His decision and action in this matter will also be ruled by his past experiences, current job scenario, his goals and aspirations which can be influenced genetically also in terms of being ambitious.
Strawson’s theory does reveal a very materialistic viewpoint which overlooks some important aspects of the very being of a man. Dualism doesn’t negate the fact that a man’s circumstances and experiences don’t play a role in the way he acts, but emphasizes on the self-consciousness to reason out and act. In this light I strongly feel that Strawson’s argument that one cannot be held responsible for his actions as one cannot make oneself is rather weak and not convincing.
Afterall a human being’s brain does not function mechanically. The brain is made to reason, think and analyse before action is taken. Therefore in every way, free will is associated strongly with moral responsibility. Every human being has the freedom to act, speak and think, but at the same time take the responsibility for his actions. If according to the pessimistic point of view man acted according to how he is made then I don’t think that leaves man with any freedom to act or choose as everything is predetermined. It will be a very mechanical life for a human being that way to experience and do things in a way which is pre-set.
It is only because every person has a different level of self-consciousness and thinking that everyone behaves differently. And all have a free will that exhibits differently from individual to individual. Therefore I strongly believe that there is an existence of free will and also a moral responsibility associated with it as we all living together in a society sharing the same earth.
In no way can the pessimist point of view of free will be free of moral obligations and responsibility. Thus dualism is the right way to look at free will and understand how a person is morally responsible for his actions. It negates the facts and viewpoints of determinism, pessimism and that of Strawson’s. Instead it presents a more logical, wise and natural way of looking at this subject. It is a viewpoint that most philosophers will agree with as it gives more value to the very existence of human beings. Not only that, it also differentiates them and uplifts them to a higher level of existence than other living creatures, which are deprived of the very privilege of a free will. Animals and birds can said to be leading a more mechanical life without having the real freedom to choose, think and act. If everything was pre-determined then the future would be so easy to predict for human beings. However God didn’t mean it to be that way. Life is truly as mystery and it takes the course of how we use our freedom and act. Its true that our thoughtful and planned actions determine the quality and way of life. Therefore any human being who uses free will also weighs the pros and cons of his actions. And this is how Dualism affects free will and moral responsibility.
Reference
Free Will. 2011. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26 March 2012
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014
