Episode 93: Freedom and Responsibility (Strawson vs. Strawson)
May 3, 2014
auto_awesome
Philosopher Tamler Sommers joins to explore profound themes of freedom and moral responsibility. He discusses P.F. and Galen Strawson's contrasting views on moral blame, examining the intersections of determinism and personal accountability. The conversation dives into the emotional complexities of resentment, the implications of childhood experiences on moral judgments, and how determinants shape feelings of anger and empathy in moral contexts. Sommers challenges listeners to reconsider traditional views and highlights the nuanced relationship between intent and societal influences.
The podcast examines whether moral responsibility exists in a deterministic world, challenging traditional notions of accountability and choice.
P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes highlight how our emotional responses to others’ actions persist, complicating moral judgments in a deterministic framework.
The introduction of moral luck demonstrates how outcomes beyond our control significantly influence moral assessments and complicate the attribution of blameworthiness.
Deep dives
Introduction to Free Will and Moral Responsibility
The podcast explores fundamental questions about free will and moral responsibility, particularly through the works of philosophers Peter Strawson and his son Galen Strawson. Central to the discussion is whether individuals can truly be held morally accountable for their actions, especially in light of determinism, which suggests that all actions are pre-determined by prior states of the universe. Gary Watson's perspectives are also highlighted, indicating variations on the theme of moral responsibility, notably challenging the idea that humans deserve praise or blame in a deterministic framework. The conversation weaves in different philosophical positions that create a rich tapestry of perspectives on the age-old question of free will.
Determinism and its Implications
Determinism is discussed as a critical concept that underlies debates about moral responsibility, suggesting that if our actions are pre-determined, then traditional notions of accountability may be called into question. Both P.F. Strawson and Galen Strawson offer responses to this dilemma, with P.F. arguing that our reactive attitudes—how we emotionally respond to others' actions—remain consistent regardless of determinism. The podcast emphasizes how determinism challenges the common intuition that moral responsibility is inherently tied to choice, prompting listeners to reconsider what accountability truly means in a deterministic world. This discussion posits that understanding determinism is essential for grappling with the complexities of moral judgment.
The Role of Reactive Attitudes
The concept of reactive attitudes, such as resentment, blame, and gratitude, forms a core part of the moral discourse within the podcast. These attitudes are portrayed as integral to our interactions, suggesting that they structure ethical behavior and the expectations we hold of others. The speakers argue that even in cases where individuals might not be deserving of blame due to circumstances, our emotional reactions still persist, demonstrating the complexities of human judgment. Consequently, these insights lead to reflections on whether these reactive attitudes can coexist with a determinist philosophy without collapsing our moral framework.
The Challenge of Moral Luck
Moral luck is introduced as another pivotal topic, particularly how outcomes beyond an individual's control can influence moral assessment. The idea is illustrated through contrasting examples, such as a reckless driver who causes harm versus one who accidentally avoids causing it. The podcast highlights that our moral reactions often hinge not just on intentions but also on the consequences of actions, which complicates the attribution of blameworthiness. This discussion demonstrates how deeply intertwined societal perceptions of morality are with the unpredictable nature of life and human behavior.
Compatibilism Versus Skepticism
The dialogue presents compatibilism as a viewpoint that attempts to reconcile free will with determinism, suggesting that individuals can still possess a form of freedom even within a deterministic framework. Skeptics, however, challenge the notion that such freedom supports moral responsibility, leading to a fundamental questioning of whether any form of blame can be justified. The speakers navigate this contentious divide, with nuanced arguments illustrating how compatibilist theories can still allow for moral accountability amidst deterministic principles. This discourse ultimately raises important reflections on the nature of justice, punishment, and what it means to hold someone accountable in a world governed by causal laws.
The Importance of Context in Moral Judgment
The podcast emphasizes that moral judgments are often context-dependent and can vary significantly based on personal circumstances and relationships. This context-driven understanding suggests that evaluations of blame may shift when individuals' backgrounds or motivations are taken into account. The speakers reflect on how societal norms and individual interactions shape moral considerations, which may lead to different reactions based on understanding rather than pure judgment. This insight highlights the complexity of morality, suggesting that it is a dynamic interplay of emotional responses and rational considerations shaped by social contexts.
On P.F. Strawson's "Freedom and Resentment" (1960), Galen Strawson's "The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility" (1994), and Gary Watson's "Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme" (1987). With guest Tamler Sommers.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
