Question for atheists - is there such thing as moral responsibility?

[Caligula]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed. For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.
Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing. The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

 

[Sunstone]

As a practical matter, societies must hold individuals responsible for their behavior. The devil is in the details, though: In what way or manner do you hold someone responsible? Do you punish them or try to reform them, etc.

If you hold to a model of human nature that posits something like unlimited free will, then it seems to me you will be more likely to punish than attempt to reform. On the other hand, if you hold to a model that posits very limited or no free will, then it seems to me you will be more likely to reform than punish.

 

[Caligula]

As a practical matter, societies must hold individuals responsible for their behavior. The devil is in the details, though: In what way or manner do you hold someone responsible? Do you punish them or try to reform them, etc.

Yes, I left the door open for the social responsibility.
The society decides, by mutual agreement, what are the actions incompatible with itself and if measures are to be taken. The goal is the same: avoid these kind of actions to take place in the future. The way in which this is to be achieved differs a lot (punish as an example, isolate, educate etc.).

 

[LuisDantas]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

There is such a thing as a social moral responsibility, but it is little more than the general duties of the individuals.

Individual moral responsibility, by contrast, is paramount and undeniable. I'm not sure why you even ask, really.

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed. For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.
Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

Free will is a nonsensical, and usually purposefully meaningless concept IMO. Far as I know it was only created to attempt to explain why a perfect Creator God led to such an imperfect existence. By confronting an contradictory concept with opposite yet equivalent contradictions it attempts to balance both, with poor results. It has never and IMO can never be anything better than an illusion.

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing. The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

It will depend on what do you mean exactly by "being Hitler". If I had the exact same brain and same life experiences as Hitler than sure, I must assume that I would indeed be Hitler and do the exact same things that he did, down to the last foolish, destructive detail.

It is however more interesting to ask how much of a difference would be necessary to make a difference, so to speak.

Personally, I think the responsibility is somewhat shared. We all teach and learn from each other very constantly, even in casual conversations. That definitely includes reinforcing or changing our own interests and motivations, even parameters of acceptable behavior. The boundaries between individual and social responsibility are not only difuse, but also complicated by the fact that acceptance is a powerful need for most (or even all) people.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

I'm not clear on the distinction. They should of course be closely tied, but I take it that you are mostly interested on how responsible for their own actions people tend to feel? Specifically when given the opportunity to instead choose how to be viewed by the social environment?

Generally speaking, considerably less than we should.

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

Yes, we can and we must, because problematic as personal responsibility is to develop and to express (it is by no means "free" and I don't think it can ever be or even attempt to be, even and perhaps most of all when under utopical circunstances) it is still the only building block we have to build social responsibility. Terrible, wasteful, tragic mistakes are commited routinely out of a silly insistence in assuming that social responsibility somehow can or does exist "on its own".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So, do we punish people based on their actions, or do we punish them based on their levels of culpability for their actions?

In reality, I suppose there is a mish-mash of both, with certain actions attracting punishment, and certain factors offered as mitigation. But ultimately, I am a believer in personal responsibility. My history largely informs my actions, but I am aware of wrong and right, and I am aware of the law. Hence I wouldn't see 'he was beaten as a child' as a good defence in a case of child beating. It's a reason, not an excuse, in my mind.

 

[Tiapan]

Morals are relative but some seem more conducive to social harmony eg the last 6 commandments. In modern Societies, where the law works, it takes the position of moral director, and is generally observed by the public in these societies. Hitler was a product of his time using xenophobia to reek revenge for the failures of WW1. It would be difficult to reproduce the exact same result in a Hitler mustached German, however there are many candidates since that are very similar, eg Pol Pot, Kim Il sung, Stahlin, Mao, several central African state leaders and most of the middle east.

 

[Caligula]

Individual moral responsibility, by contrast, is paramount and undeniable. I'm not sure why you even ask, really.

Yes, we can and we must, because problematic as personal responsibility is to develop and to express ......it is still the only building block we have to build social responsibility.

Thanks for the answer!

You provided great arguments for the "we must" (talk about one's moral responsibility) and I totally agree with you. I'm still struggling to see why "we can" . It could be the case that "moral responsibility" gains the same status you mentioned about free will: necessary in order to keep things in order but a rather nonsensical concept.
Wouldn't moral responsibility require a prior form of control from one's part? If being in Hitler's shoes would not have allowed anyone to act differently, wouldn't that mean society is blaming one just for being unique?

IMO I am not entitled to morally judge someone, as long as there is no reason to believe I would have acted differently than the one I am to judge, if I was in his shoes. It simply couldn't have happened otherwise. Judging someone without being in his shoes doesn't seem fair to me and leaves the door open for the idea that one could decide what is morally better for another.
No free will = no individual moral responsibility (?)

It is however more interesting to ask how much of a difference would be necessary to make a difference, so to speak.

Why would that matter at all? Even a slight deviation would mean you can no longer put yourself in one's shoes. It could be the case that seeing a butterfly on a particular field in a particular day would change the way one sees his entire life, but that still is no result of free will and can not be blamable. ...But most importantly, that would still not entitle one to make moral judgments regarding one that did not see the same butterfly.

 

[Caligula]

My history largely informs my actions, but I am aware of wrong and right, and I am aware of the law.

Yes, but that fact that you are aware of the wrong and right and the law is not the result of free will. It's only your brain and life experience. It just couldn't have happened otherwise. That doesn't make you neither culpable nor virtuous (not the right word but I hope you get the idea).

 

[Caligula]

Morals are relative but some seem more conducive to social harmony eg the last 6 commandments. In modern Societies, where the law works, it takes the position of moral director, and is generally observed by the public in these societies. Hitler was a product of his time using xenophobia to reek revenge for the failures of WW1. It would be difficult to reproduce the exact same result in a Hitler mustached German, however there are many candidates since that are very similar, eg Pol Pot, Kim Il sung, Stahlin, Mao, several central African state leaders and most of the middle east.

My question: is Hitler morally responsible as long as his actions couldn't have been different for reasons that can not be blamed on him?

 

[Caligula]

Let's take for example a trial where the defendant is accused of stealing.
The defense lawyer will make appeal to mitigating circumstances. He will say that the defendant was poor, that it had 4 children to feed, that he was abused by parents when he was a child etc. . The mitigating circumstances make appeal to the jury's empathy by trying to put them in the defendant's shoes. But where does that have to end? You could claim that the defendant has an IQ of only 56 and that also affected his judgment or his fear of repercussions. I mean you could go on forever and talk about genes and mutations that are not to be blamed on the defendant. In other words one would be judged for being himself. Wouldn't that judgment have to be constrained within social boundaries only, without extension to morality?
Why would moral responsibility have to interfere with a social one?

 

[Sunstone]

I believe in responsibility -- that individuals should be held accountable for their behavior. What I don't have much belief in is moral responsibility -- at least not in the sense that someone is a completely free agent. To me, free will either doesn't exist or is very limited in scope. But it seems to me that, if one takes the notion of moral responsibility to its logical conclusion, then one cannot admit mitigating factors would have, in the final analysis, a decisive influence on someone's behavior. However, most science on the issue would suggest such a view is absurd, at best. At least, in so far as I understand the science.

 

[Caligula]

Sorry for my rant here but I feel there I have to add a little more .

I want to make it clear how my dilemma started. I was thinking of the children in the ISIS propaganda videos that are soon to take part in the war (I hope not). I thought to myself that my own child would have probably done the exact same thing if he was there. I mean, in this case there's no need for philosophical talk and say that simply seeing a butterfly could change your destiny. No! Even one's own IQ is not an important factor in such a world.
Why would I morally judge such a child when his main actions are nothing but the result of external context? Yes, his life is probably incompatible with mine, for which reason I wish I would live and he didn't, but that's about all. There is place here for social judgment, but none for moral ones.
While those children actions could be regarded as moral or immoral, we can not talk about their moral responsibility.
The thing is this idea could be extended, therefore this thread in the first place.

 

[Caligula]

However, most science on the issue would suggest such a view is absurd, at best.

Philosophically accurate, scientifically not feasible .

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the answer!

You provided great arguments for the "we must" (talk about one's moral responsibility) and I totally agree with you. I'm still struggling to see why "we can" . It could be the case that "moral responsibility" gains the same status you mentioned about free will: necessary in order to keep things in order but a rather nonsensical concept.

Your later post further clarified where you are coming from, so allow me to clarify what I think on this matter.

Moral responsibility, I feel, does indeed exist. But it is not always relevant. We are far more tied to circunstances than we would like to believe.

In your example, the children probably have some moral responsibility of their own, albeit limited by their personal experience. But they also have a very real need to remain accepted and supported by their social environment. Adults will only put up so much with questioning of the validity of their values and directives.

So, in short: we can... if our social environment is supportive enough of our choices and preferences.

I wrote a text about that a while ago: since I do not believe that there is such a thing as free will, what do I believe to exist in its place?

The conclusion I arrived at was that there is an acceptance space, which is not of our own (direct) personal making, but rather granted to us, gifted by those who choose to accept and acknowledge us and our choices. That is my explanation for why some people insist that there is free will while the facts I am aware of pretty much deny that. They mistake the result with a cause, and fail to realize that they are extrapolating from a privileged situation.

TLDR: Moral responsibility exists ... if we are loved and accepted well enough for it to arise.

Wouldn't moral responsibility require a prior form of control from one's part? If being in Hitler's shoes would not have allowed anyone to act differently, wouldn't that mean society is blaming one just for being unique?

If my model is accurate in that regard, blaming Hitler is blaming his own society for listening so much and so uncritically to his message.

That runs somewhat against the grain of our general anthropological tendencies, interestingly enough. Humanity has a strong affinity for finding heroes and villains in situations, and conveniently projecting both merits and blames towards those figures.

I guess it all comes from the scary weight of being or feeling fully responsible for what we do. It does not help that so often we need other people's cooperation to realize much of anything, nor that to achieve that cooperation it is often helpful or even necessary to present some form and degree of misleading.

IMO I am not entitled to morally judge someone, as long as there is no reason to believe I would have acted differently than the one I am to judge, if I was in his shoes. It simply couldn't have happened otherwise. Judging someone without being in his shoes doesn't seem fair to me and leaves the door open for the idea that one could decide what is morally better for another.
No free will = no individual moral responsibility (?)

If only we were so lucky as to have such a choice!

No, I fear that is not possible. We can and must make moral judgements and have moral responsibility. It just turns out that they will often be very wrong, out of lack of information or even of empathy.

We should be aware of our own huge degree of falibility in our moral judgements and adjust our expectations of fairness (from ourselves or from others) accordingly. But we do not really have the choice to refrain from either judgements or personal responsibility. Existence does not give us such a choice.

Why would that matter at all? Even a slight deviation would mean you can no longer put yourself in one's shoes. It could be the case that seeing a butterfly on a particular field in a particular day would change the way one sees his entire life, but that still is no result of free will and can not be blamable. ...But most importantly, that would still not entitle one to make moral judgments regarding one that did not see the same butterfly.

It matters little if one's goal is to assign blame (or merit), because it will all be of such dubious significance.

It matters quite a lot more if our goal is instead to develop and maintain a functional, healthy moral structure to our communities, though.

It just won't be much good for pointing out "heroes" and "villains", because the premise that they exist is so very suspect.

 

[Revoltingest]

My question addresses mostly to atheists but anyone is welcomed to respond.

Is there such thing as moral responsibility or we can talk only about a social one?

Why am I raising such a question? Because any given action a person makes is an outcome of complex factors that can not be imputed. For example you can not blame one for his genes, intelligence and the fact that he was beaten by an alcoholic father when he was a child. All these could have contributed to his decisions.
Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

In other words, if you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same thing. The fact that you have the same moustache and also speak German does not put you in a position to say you would have done differently because your transpose is incomplete.

I am not talking about actions and their moral values, but about persons and their moral responsibility (being held accountable or blamed).

So, if the factors that lead to a specific decision can not be imputed, can we still talk about one's moral responsibility?

Is there such a thing as moral responsibility? Yes, there is....but not in an absolute truth kind of way. It's an emergent property of human evolution. (Have I over-used that explanation yet?) Moral responsibility is just something we feel compelled to exercise....or not (depending upon the individual & circumstances).

 

[Caligula]

If my model is accurate in that regard, blaming Hitler is blaming his own society for listening so much and so uncritically to his message.

Could this be part of an infinite regression of culpability? Listening so much and uncritically to his message could point the finger elsewhere ...and so on, until the blame dissipates.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could this be part of an infinite regression of culpability? Listening so much and uncritically to his message could point the finger elsewhere ...and so on, until the blame dissipates.

I don't know about infinite, and I stand unconvinced that blame is an useful thing to pursue, but there is certainly a tendency towards blaming others ad infinitum.

At its most constructive, that tendency can be channelled into efforts at distributing resources and responsibilities in an atmosphere of mutual support.

I guess I am a commie at heart, or something.

 

[Parsimony]

Yeah, I kind of say free will is just an illusion.

If free will is an illusion, then how could anyone be truly responsible for their conduct, moral or otherwise? Theism or atheism would be beside the point.

 

[Caligula]

If free will is an illusion, then how could anyone be truly responsible for their conduct, moral or otherwise? Theism or atheism would be beside the point.

I already stated or implied that I believe one could not truly be held morally responsible, just because of the lack of free will. I believe in an infinite regression of guilt until this is "absorbed" by natural causes, in which case a moral judgment would be nonsensical. IMO, no free will => no blame.
As a result, I believe one is never truly entitled to make moral judgments. If one would morally judge me it is only because he is not in my shoes. It is a platitude, I know, but I would just consider it unfair and would not provide one such an authority.
Please expand on the "or otherwise", because my statements resumes to moral responsibility only.

 

[Parsimony]

I already stated or implied that I believe one could not truly be held morally responsible, just because of the lack of free will. I believe in an infinite regression of guilt until this is "absorbed" by natural causes, in which case a moral judgment would be nonsensical. IMO, no free will => no blame.
Please expand on the "or otherwise", because my statements resume to moral responsibility only.

By "otherwise" I simply meant all other choices as well, like choosing what career you will pursue. It was just to make my statement more concise.