Consider these scenarios:

1: A three-year-old takes his fathers gun, loaded and unsecured, and kills a woman.

2: A twelve-year-old, who has suffered continuous emotional and physical abuse, intentionally takes his father's gun and kills a woman for teasing him.

3: A twenty-five year old, who had suffered continuous emotional and physical abuse, intentionally kills a woman for leaving him for another man.

4: A twenty-five year old, who was raised by wonderful parents, intentionally kills a woman "for the fun of it".

5: A twenty-five year old, who was raised by wonderful parents, intentionally kills a woman "just for the fun of it." A subsequent MRI scan shows a tumour on his prefrontal cortex.

Take a minute to determine the moral responsibility - or immorality - of each individual perpetrator. Yes, there is a correct answer.


Why is this? Moral responsibility rests on the notion of free will - or the idea that we are the author of our own thoughts and desires - which is an increasingly unlikely aspect of human behaviour. If, as seems most probable, free will doesn't exist then the concept of individual moral responsibility must necessarily go out of the window, and with it retributive justice.

In most of those cases, we intuitively understand that they aren't in fact "responsible" for themselves either as a result of their upbringing or some sort of affliction (such as the tumour). That is not to disallow us from making moral claims, or condemning immoral actions, but merely to shift the priority to a more social level.

Imagine being in a cage with a particularly violent bear who had previously mauled three other individuals he had come across. The bear is, obviously, dangerous and unfortunately victim to a moral deficit. The bear, again obviously, should probably be kept separate from other bears. Yet to call the bear, itself, "immoral" is patently ridiculous.

Of course, humans have a better understanding of social consequences than pretty much all other known species. To say that people shouldn't be held accountable is to be facetious with the idea (prisons could still be justified on the basis of deterrence) and its clear that people are capable of choice.

However, we return to the idea that people aren't actually the author of their own desires or thoughts. That isn't to claim all people are equally moral or that all people are equally dangerous/docile. The point here is, merely, that "moral responsibility", as we currently understand it, is potentially harmful.

Erm... Isn't this literally the first conclusion any hard determinist ever reaches?!