Criticising Strawson's Compatibilism

The belief that human beings have moral responsibility is used to judge people based on their actions, then to reward or punish them accordingly. But is this just? This question becomes unavoidable when the theory of determinism enters the discussion. Determinists claim that every event or occurrence in the world, including human desires, thoughts, and acts, are predetermined by physical laws of cause and effect. In such a world there is no space for free will, since any person’s action at any time could not have been different, if all the physical conditions causing it remain the same. As there is no human free will, say the determinists, there can be no moral responsibility either. At the other end of the axis stand libertarians who also view the two phenomena as incompatible, yet the theory they reject is determinism, as they believe that humans do possess free will. Therefore, assigning moral responsibility is justifiable according to their view. In-between these two positions are the compatibilists, who claim that determinism and moral responsibility are not mutually exclusive after all. Different compatibilists explain this with different arguments. In this article, I will only examine one such argument, made by Peter Strawson in his seminal paper ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 48, 1962), with the purpose of seeing whether it does resolve the centuries old puzzle.
Strawson’s Argument
This story is from the {{IssueName}} edition of {{MagazineName}}.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,500+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber ? Sign In
This story is from the {{IssueName}} edition of {{MagazineName}}.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,500+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber? Sign In

Affirmative Action for Androids
Jimmy Alfonso Licon asks, when should we prioritise android rights?

Welcome to the Civilization of the Liar's Paradox
Slavoj Žižek uncovers political paradoxes of lying.

The Importance of the Purple
Massimo Pigliucci looks for threads of integrity in a morally compromised world.

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

Anand Vaidya (1976-2024)
Manjula Menon on the short but full career of a 'disciplinary trespasser'.

Studying Smarter with AI?
Max Gottschlich on sense and nonsense when using AI in academia.

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

Stephen Fry
Perhaps unshockingly for someone who is an actor, broadcaster, comedian, director, narrator and writer, Stephen Fry has a deep interest in words and how we use them. After hearing him lecture on that subject, Marcel Steinbauer-Lewis asked him about Artificial Intelligence and how it connects with the extraordinary lure of language.

Is VR Meaningful Escapism?
Amir Haj-Bolouri enquires into possible meaning through technology.

What Simone de Beauvoir Got — And Didn't Get – About Motherhood
Nura Hossainzadeh argues that motherhood is both physical and transcendent.