Free Will and Moral Responsibility

In our lives, we always have the choice to do whatever we want, and after that, we must take responsibility for what we’ve done and be willing to accept the result or consequences of our actions. They are called free will and moral responsibility. We can get away from those for some reason. Free will and Moral responsibility can be understood from two different views. Traditional view and Modern theory. In the conventional picture, we can see through fatalism, which is determined by forces greater than humans and beyond understanding. And karma, a human’s present life circumstances, is the result of past choices they have made in these lives or past lives. But we cannot always accept the consequences like that. That is why in the modern view, there are libertarianism, hard determinism, and soft determinism to make people judge through others’ actions and help them to get away with their actions. Despite people having free will, I think there is only soft determinism is correct, and others are wrong because they lack responsibility.

Everything starts with free will, which gives humans the power to choose their activities and must be responsible for the actions that they commit. Free will, somehow, is similar to the First Amendment of the Constitution, in which people have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many more. Since people have free will, it means they believe in Libertarianism. In Libertarianism, people have free will to do anything. They believe that humanity should be praised and rewarded if they do good things. And they should be punished and criticized if they do bad things. Without fire, there is no smoke; a person committed to their actions, good or bad, has reason to do it. They may face much strong pressure at the time, and push them to the brink of doing things without control. It can be life circumstances, intense emotions, or psychological issues. All of those led people to do their actions. But they can resist the pressure if they know how to control themselves. I think that libertarianism may be right when it had the conclusion that everyone should have responsibility for what they did. But in some way, it is unfair and wrong because libertarians don’t see things enough to give a judgment. What if there is something that impulses them to do that action?

There is a very famous murder case that happened many years ago where the victim was deserved to have died, and the killer should have found not guilty, in my opinion. Cyntoia Brown is serving a life sentence for murdering a man who raped her and for sex trafficking. She was only 16 years old, and the punishment was compared with an adult. People didn’t believe what had happened to her and put the blame on her. Society just thinks that murder is wrong and needs to be punished by the law. Where is the justice? Libertarianism states that people should be punished if they do something wrong. I agree with that. But we had to see why and what led her to do that. Cyntoia was raped and abused brutally by that man, and at that moment, she couldn’t take anymore; she had to do what she had to do. Society is speaking up against abusing, raping, and sex trafficking. If anyone did like Cyntoia, people had to look at both sides to give judgment. Everyone can have self-control, and Cyntoia acted in self-control to protect herself. Back then, she was just a child; if she was an adult, she was probably sentenced to death. So I can see that if we don’t see things clearly and convict people, there will be no justice, and we indirectly become bad people. Free will may be good, but it can be harmful if people don’t know how to use it.

People don’t always have free will, and they sometimes don’t need responsibility for their actions because actions are caused by factors outside of us, such as family history, society, genes, or even pressures of life. The steps are determined by environment, heredity, and life experiences. It is called determinism. There are two kinds of determinism. Hard determinism and soft determinism. In my opinion, I think that criminal loves their lawyer to defend them if they use determinism. Especially hard determinism. It is stated that we don’t have free will, so it would be a big mistake to hold people morally responsible for their actions. Hard determinism is a lack of responsibility. There are some problems that I think hard determinism is wrong, and lack of accountability. First, if we believe that they have a problem with the brain or are inherited from the family, leading them to commit what they did, they will be innocent meanwhile, maybe their crime is so horrible. A year ago, there was a massacre in a Florida high school that took away the lives of 17 innocent people. The killer is Nikolas Cruz. He lived with the loss of the love of his parents and no education, and nobody loved him. That led him to do that. He told the authority that a voice in his head told him to do that. Who will believe that? Nobody. He should take responsibility for what he did. And the second thing is that there will be no justice if people believe in hard determinism. Agree that we must see a thing on both sides and give the final judgment. But we can not be sure whether that person is normal or not, maybe that person is fine and has nothing wrong. We must obey just laws created through a democratic process in which the people affected by the law could participate. Hard determinism is against moral responsible and human lives. There is no way that people can get away with the action that they ever committed so easily like that. If they can get away because of hard determinism, there will be karma in the future, just like the traditional view of free will. I always believe that whatever you do, consequences will come after that. Sooner or later, karma will be there.

One of the famous cases is a very famous example O.J. Simpson. From a very famous footballer to the most hated man in Hollywood for murdering his wife and Ron Goldman. Before that event, we must mention the violent abuse of Rodney King, who was a taxi driver and was caught after a high-speed chase. The LAPD beat him brutally, and it created a massive outrage among African American, which led to the riot in Los Angeles back then. People believe that the action of LAPD was an act of racism and discrimination and violated civil rights.

Until the trial of O.J. Simpson, I think that when he was found not guilty, jurors didn’t want to be racist. However, there was not enough evidence or unclear evidence. There were a lot of criticism and opinions around this case. Return to the trial of O.J., I think it is Hard Determinism because somehow, there were many people involved in this case, evidence was not clear enough, even the police department, which made O.J. a victim. The lawyers of O.J. called the “Dream Team,” were so good when they defended him from covering evidence to wearing a black leather glove in court. They are also convinced that his wife had an affair and cheated on him, and he had nothing to do with it. All of those helped him to get away with murder. If a libertarian controlled the trial, O.J. would have been found guilty and sentenced to death or life in prison based on how severe the case was.

Libertarianism and Hard determinism are injustice and wrong with moral responsibility. So that’s why there is Soft determinism, which can balance everything properly. Soft determinism states that factors outside of us causally determine human behavior. However, humans should still be held morally responsible for actions within control. Philosopher Patricia Churchland believes that human brains allow for self-control, which means humans can control themselves from the steps that they are planning to take. In this society, it is essential for a living because you can do more extraordinary things if you know to control your temper. Patricia also said that as long as someone processes regular mechanisms for self-control, they should be held responsible for actions they decide to commit. But somehow, it still has some exceptions in soft determinism. A person should not be held morally accountable when they have a problem with their mind, which is a neurological issue that limits their ability for self-control. And something or someone makes us do something through coercion or forces like extortion and threat of harm. I believe that soft determinism is correct because soft determinism sees things on both sides. One side is the reason why they did it, and the other that what impulse them to do that action. A person who has committed a crime somehow can have the right to remain silent or the right to have a lawyer to defend them. Soft determinism is the same as human rights. They can be found guilty or innocent based on what you hear and see. They might have mental problems, or they can be hereditary from their families. Soft determinism is justice and equality for everyone. It allows them to tell people what they think and why they do it. So that people can base them on that to judge. People must have morally responsible with their actions whether they have a problem or not, unless they have an issue or threat.

Return to the case of Cyntoia Brown that I mentioned before, it is evident that she was raped and abused by the man she killed, but there was no evidence for what she said. A libertarian just convicted her of murder and sentenced her to life. In this case, Cyntoia needed soft determinism to defend her actions. A soft determinist should have concluded this case like this. Because she could not control herself, she was being pushed to the brink of misery and threatened with harm. Besides, she was only a child, and no children should be held responsible for what they did because they were too young. But the court considered her an adult and punished her as an adult. Since she couldn’t control herself, Cyntoia should be freed, and society needed to judge the man she killed.

Soft determinism is being used a lot right now, especially in court. A long time ago, a movie put soft determinism as a symbol of justice. 12 Angry Men. A story of 12 jurors in a room who had to decide whether that 18-year-old slum boy who killed his father was guilty or not.

Meanwhile, every juror in that room agreed that the boy was guilty, there was only juror #8 thought he was innocent because juror #8 thought there was no evidence to convict him of that crime. He tried to protect that boy from being convicted of murder. Every juror in that room that looked at one side that he killed his father and that boy came from a slum-dog area with many criminals. After many discussions, they finally gave out the verdict of not guilty. They tried to do all the experiments, arguing about what if that boy did that. They started to change their mind from libertarians to soft determinists to have a final decision. If they kept their thought that that boy was guilty despite his innocence, they all just became a murderer.

Free will and Moral responsible can go together or even against each other. People can choose their actions. Whether what you decide to judge or use in life, libertarianism, hard determinism, or soft determinism, you must select it to be careful. Libertarianism gives you free will, you must have a responsibility for your own life and your action. However, you will face many criticisms because people will never understand how hard you have been through. They want to see the result and the consequences that come after that. Hard determinism doesn’t believe in free will, so all our actions will never be judged or criticized whether we are wrong. It is a total lack of responsibility and out of justice, another way to say hard determinism is an unjust law that degrades society. Unlike those two, soft determinism can balance everything. People should hold moral responsibility if they know self-control, but if that person has a mental issue or any problem that affects their self-control, they must see it again to judge. The choice is yours. Do whatever you want so that you feel comfortable and not feel guilty and get harmful consequences in the future.