As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath.I agree with Harris halfway: given the truth of causal determinism, were he to trade places "atom for atom," he too would be a depraved criminal. But then, like the criminals, he too would be properly blameable and punishable for his crimes.
What could Harris say to this? If Harris means to dismiss or rule out this response (and he does), then an independent argument is needed in support of the substantive philosophical position that causal determinism categorically rules out moral responsibility. So far as I can tell from the above excerpt, Harris has only assumed this critical principle, not argued for it.
To be fair, I haven't read his book. Maybe he has the right sort of philosophical argument for the 'causal determinism rules out free will' background principle there. But I doubt it. From what I have read, he gives the impression that he thinks the issue is simply one of showing causal determinism to be true. But it is not enough simply to assume that if causal determinism is true, then moral responsibility is impossible. That premise of the argument is substantive and controversial and not at all obvious. Moreover, this philosophically substantive premise could not be established on empirical grounds; moral responsibility as such, if it exists at all, wouldn't be the sort of thing that exists as an object of empirical investigation or scientific study. If moral responsibility exists in some possible world, then, in that world, try as you might, you're not going to get moral responsibility into a test tube, or into an fMRI.
So then, a challenge for Sam Harris, and for anyone else tempted to his position: why in the first place should we think that if casual determinism is true, then moral responsibility is impossible?
Sam Harris does feel that free will is mostly an illusion. I believe we can make choices, but seldom freely. In my (free) ebook on comparative mysticism, "the greatest achievement in life," is a chapter called "Outside the box." Here are three paragraphs from it:
ReplyDeleteWhat if you had to make all your decisions about living while detained in a jail cell? The cells may be open for brief periods each day, but the prisoners are still surrounded by walls. There are also walls around cells of everyday life. We are restricted by our ability to control our emotions, mind and body. Even with full command of our “self,” we must live within the restraints of Nature and society. Freedom is relative.
“Free will” is really quite limited, despite belief that we control ourselves and our lives. We think we have endless choices...until we try to make them. Each decision must not only be based on what we “want to do,” but also on our own capabilities and what is expected of us. Nature and society imprison us, whether we like it or not. The key to release is mystical realization. All in One and One in All, the divine unity, opens the gate between a universal consciousness and most people’s constrained awareness.
Outer walls are the boxes of Nature and of society. Inclement weather, lack of sunlight, gravity, and/or other natural phenomena may restrain our movements. Our own natural aptitudes, practiced talents and learned skills are always lacking in some areas. Human nature is controlled mostly by society. What we believe that other people expect of us greatly influences how we feel, think and act. Considering the reactions of our family, friends, business associates, community, and/or nation determines much of what we do. Those “laws” of Nature and society govern our lives, usually more so than we wish. Mystical awareness can allow us to obey divine law here and now.
Sam Harris has written positively on mysticism and said “I see nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have.” Harris' personal background reflects his own search toward that goal.
From what I've read, it seems rather that Harris think free will is ENTIRELY an illusion. And if Harris is right that free will / moral responsibility is ruled out by causal determinism, mysticism cannot save these ideas, even assuming that there is some value to mystical practice, as Harris does. So I think it really matters to independently assess the strength of the premise that causal determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. (I think that what matters most here is preserving the idea of moral responsibility, not some particular metaphysics of free wills.)
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that causal determinism and free will are incompatible. Transcending the self, as mystics are prone to do, would see that both are true to a greater or lesser extent. It depends on your perspective.
ReplyDelete