(C) Phill Allen 2009
Rub your hands together vigorously.
Describe in detail what just happened and why.
The friction that occurred from vigorously rubbing
your hands together caused the hands to heat up.
There is a theory that everything that happens in the universe has a cause. This is
called the theory of universal causation.
Without causation, science, which relies on observing and
predicting outcomes from identical circumstances, would
not work. When an individual is ill, doctors must establish
the cause before they can offer a cure.
So, can universal causation also be the determining factor in regard to human action?
Are humans truly free to make decisions in a given situation, or do all the circumstances
that led to that person being in that specific situation, determine an inevitable outcome?
The theory that we are free to act as we wish and therefore the individual is
morally responsible for their own actions as people are ‘self-determining’, which
means they make their choices of their own volition.
The theory that all human decisions and actions are determined by other events
and actions that happened prior to that moment. This removes any individual
moral responsibility as a person’s decisions are determined by external factors.
The theory that some human actions are determined by things such as values,
desires and prior choices, but that the individual is still free to make a moral
choice at the moment of decision and thus is morally responsible.
When referring to a person’s free will, people often assume it equates to some kind of
permission slip; ‘I want to do this, I have free will, therefore, I can.’ But just how free are we
to make our own choices? Can you choose to fly, for instance, become God or even the
Pope? Free will can only work in the parameters of the surrounding influences that may
indeed limit it. Give an example of such limitations from each of the following influences:
Family
Genetics &
Environment
Natural Law
Society
Religion
Conscience
Consider: An army sniper is stationed on a
roof in Baghdad. He looks through his scope,
aligns his target, squeezes the trigger and
shoots dead an innocent civilian.
Q. Just how culpable is he?
Task: Place the scenarios below in order of
how much the soldier is to blame for his
actions.
The soldier
was acting on
an order
from his
superior
officer.
Most Blameworthy
The soldier
had been
threatened
with
execution if
he didn’t
obey his
orders.
The soldier
intentionally
shot the
innocent
civilian.
The soldier
shot the
innocent
civilian by
mistake.
The soldier,
was
hallucinating
after having
taken some
drugs.
Least Blameworthy
Q: How would a libertarian, a hard determinist and a soft determinist view this situation
and how might they justify their thinking?
ASBO family banned from borough
A family of five have been banned from harassing
anyone in England and Wales and also banned from
their home borough of Wirral.
A court was told the Bridge family's neighbours in
Grosvenor Road, New Brighton, had "lived in fear"
of them. District Judge Nick Sanders issued the ASBO
on Thursday at Birkenhead Magistrates Court. It affects
John Bridge, 40, his wife Karen, 37, and their sons
John Jnr, 20, Alan, 18, and Luke, 16.
The family were alleged to have been involved in
threatening and violent behaviour, verbal abuse,
intimidation and criminal behaviour, including
dangerous driving and organised vehicle crime.
The reputation of the family is very strong and
residents were incredibly frightened of reprisals.
John Jnr and Alan are currently serving prison
sentences and, along with their parents, are banned
until September 2012, while Luke has been banned
from returning to Wirral until March 2009.
[BBC News Archive September 2006]
Suppose during the hearing John
Jnr, Alan and Luke had claimed
that they were not to blame for
their actions as they were a
product of their upbringing.
Task: In groups prepare a case
both for the prosecution and
defence using the three views on
moral responsibility you have
looked at so far.
CLARENCE DARROW
A HARD DETERMINIST
Who was Clarence Darrow?
• Born in Ohio, USA, in
1857.
• Studied law and started
practising in 1878 in
Chicago.
• Well known for his
clever speech and quick
wit in the court room.
Darrow’s View on Determinism
WHAT WE DO AND THE WAY
WE ARE COMES DOWN
TO LUCK
WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR OUR HEREDITY OR
OUR ENVIRONMENT
THIS
IS
A
YET THESE FACTORS DETERMINE
OUR CHARACTER,
CHOICES,
HARD
DETERMINIST
ACTS AND EVEN OUR
VIEW
THOUGHTS
CRIMES SHOULD BE VIEWED
IN THE SAME WAY AS
EARTHQUAKES OR
HURRICANES
ONLY NATURE AND NURTURE
ARE TO BLAME.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQzN9m
tvLvM
The Leopold-Loeb case
• In 1924 in Chicago, 14 year old Bobby Franks
was kidnapped and brutally murdered on his
way home from school.
• The murderers were soon caught, but
everyone was shocked at their identity. They
were two bright teenagers from wealthy
families, living lives of privilege.
• Their names were Richard Loeb and Nathan
Leopold.
• Loeb was 18, and the youngest graduate in
the history of the University of Michigan.
• Leopold was 19, and already a nationally
renowned ornithologist and University of
Chicago graduate. He was getting ready to
start Harvard Law School.
• The two brilliant young men formed a bizarre
relationship. They followed the teachings of
Nietzsche, especially his idea of the Super
Man, and planned to commit the perfect
murder.
• They kidnapped Bobby Franks, whom they
knew slightly, beat him over the head and
suffocated him with a gag. They attempted to
bury his body in a swamp, then made a
ransom demand to his family.
• However, Leopold’s spectacles were
discovered next to the body.
• As soon as they were presented with this
evidence, the teenagers confessed.
• Everyone demanded the death penalty.
Enter Loeb and Leopold’s defence lawyer –
Clarence Darrow.
• He knew the teenagers were guilty and did not argue
with any of the evidence.
• He put forward a ‘guilty’ plea, rather than the ‘not
guilty’ plea that everyone expected.
• He waived their right to a jury trial and tried their
case directly to the judge.
• His arguments in defence of Loeb and Leopold reveal
his hard determinism.
Darrow argued that, although the young
men had murdered Bobby, it was not their
fault.
He blamed a variety of outside factors:
THEIR
THEIR
THEIR
THEIR
YOUNG
PARENTS
WEALTH
NANNIES
AGE THE TRIAL BECAME A MEDIA SPECTACLE
WORLD
WAR 1
THEIR
HORMONES
DETECTIVE
NOVELS
NIETZCHE
COLLEGE
PROFS
• During the 12-hour hearing on the final day,
Darrow gave the finest speech of his career. It
included the following:
THIS TERRIBLE CRIME WAS
INHERENT IN HIS ORGANISM, AND
IT CAME FROM SOME ANCESTOR…
IS ANY BLAME ATTACHED
BECAUSE SOMEONE TOOK
NIETZSCHE’S PHILOSOPHY
SERIOUSLY AND FASHIONED
HIS LIFE UPON IT?...IT IS HARDLY
FAIR TO HANG A 19 YEAR OLD BOY
FOR THE PHILOSOPHY THAT
WAS TAUGHT HIM AT THE
UNIVERSITY!
• In the end, Darrow succeeded.
• The judge sentenced Leopold and Loeb each
to life imprisonment for the murder, plus 99
more years each for the kidnapping.
• Against the odds, the teenagers had avoided
the death penalty.
• Loeb was later killed in a prison fight and
Leopold was released from prison in 1958.
• The outcome of this trial still has
consequences today.
• Darrow was the first lawyer to suggest that a
defendant might not be responsible for his
crime because of his inherited traits – or
‘broken machines’, as Darrow called Loeb and
Leopold.
• The trial raised the issue of whether humans
are predetermined by nature or nurture to act
in certain ways.