Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Philosophical Connections

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 forward

Nick asked:

Can we hold a criminal responsible for his actions when he was either born predisposed to these
actions or conditioned to do so? When I ask religious authorities this question, a third element is often
added — something called 'free will'. This is never given much explanation and therefore I do not see
how this fits in. I'd appreciate any help on this topic.

============

They say that to understand is to forgive. If we understood Hitler, could we forgive him? Imagine that
you are the recording angel, watching ever stage of Hitler's life from the moment of conception,
through birth, childhood, adolescence to adulthood. The formation of Hitler's character, the decisions
he made or the events that influenced him become transparent to the angel's gaze. Each step along
the way is either fully intelligible in the light of what went before, or else a result of mere chance, a roll
of the dice.

From the angel's perspective, watching Hitler's life is like watching the formation and process of a
natural disaster. There is no point in the attitude of moral condemnation, any more than there would
be in shaking one's fist at a forest fire, or putting an earthquake on trial.

I don't think that it is enough to say that we don't occupy the angel's perspective, and leave it at that.
If we do not see what the angel sees, then surely that is a matter of our ignorance.

Much is usually made at this point about the necessary role of interpersonal attitudes, where
individuals are 'held responsible' for what they do, or, more crudely, the necessary function served by
punishment or making an example. It doesn't answer your question. You can see through all that. You
will say that the trial and execution of Hitler would be a charade, just as every trial and sentence is
ultimately a charade. The thing philosophers call the 'moral world' is a reality constituted by its own
mere appearance, a world of phantasms that we mistake for substantial things.

I am not ready to make the step of renouncing the moral world, because I am afraid of where it would
lead. Call it a fondness for comforting illusions if you like. Ridding ourselves of these so-called
illusions would be the first step towards a descent to Hell and the ultimate extinction of humanity. In
place of one Hitler, we would have a thousand.

Geoffrey Klempner