Free will · Quiz question 16/35
Manipulation, Brain Tumors and Bad Upbringing
One person turned violent because of a brain tumor, another because of an abusive childhood. Is their responsibility different? The manipulation argument and free will skepticism.
A became violent because of a brain tumor. B became violent because of an abusive childhood. Neither chose the cause.
When it comes to responsibility, A and B aren't fundamentally different.
This question has the same structure as Derk Pereboom's "four-case argument." He lines up a person directly manipulated by neuroscientists (1), one programmed from birth (2), one shaped by upbringing (3), and an ordinary person in a deterministic world (4). If case 1 isn't responsible and there's no relevant difference between the cases, then case 4 isn't either. Gary Watson used the case of murderer Robert Harris, who had a brutal childhood, to show how upbringing shakes our urge to blame.
Intuitively we forgive the tumor patient but blame the person with a rough past. This question asks whether that difference holds up. If neither chose the cause, blaming only one looks inconsistent.
Compatibilists look for a difference: a tumor wrecks your ability to respond to reasons, while a harsh upbringing shapes your values but leaves that ability intact. Skeptics like Pereboom say differences like that can't produce ultimate responsibility. He argues we can drop blame and still justify protecting society — say, by isolating someone dangerous, like a quarantine.
Neither chose the cause, so they're alike. We should respond with prevention and rehabilitation, not deserved blame.
Key names: Pereboom, Galen Strawson, CarusoA tumor takes away rational control; a bad upbringing doesn't necessarily. Different abilities, different responsibility.
Key names: Fischer & Ravizza, Daniel DennettHow your values were formed matters. Manipulation cancels responsibility; ordinary upbringing doesn't.
Key names: Alfred Mele