Free will · Quiz question 31/35
Identical Twins, the Basic Argument and Self-Forming Actions
Identical twins, same genes, same home — one hardworking, one lazy. Did they make that difference themselves? Galen Strawson's Basic Argument vs. Robert Kane's self-forming actions.
Identical twins with the same genes grew up in the same house. One is hardworking, the other is lazy.
Part of the difference between them is something each of them built for themselves.
This question targets a clash between two theories. In his 1994 Basic Argument, Galen Strawson argued that what we do flows from who we are, but we can't ultimately make who we are — so nobody can be ultimately responsible. Robert Kane, by contrast, held that through undetermined choices at key moments — "self-forming actions" — we shape part of our own character.
The twins' difference looks like evidence of something self-made. But on Strawson's view, even that difference traces back to tiny differences in experience, chance events and random quirks of brain development. For anything to be self-made there must first be a "you" to make it — and then what made that you? Infinite regress.
Aristotle already argued in Nicomachean Ethics Book III that character forms through repeated action, so we're partly responsible for our characters. Kane basically fused that old intuition with modern indeterminism. Compatibilists say ultimate self-creation is impossible but also unnecessary — the everyday way today's you shapes tomorrow's you is enough.
Choices at key moments and repeated habits make part of your character — and you're responsible for that part.
Key names: Kane, Aristotle, Jean-Paul SartreYou can't ultimately make yourself, so even the twins' difference comes from causes they didn't choose.
Key names: Galen Strawson, SpinozaNo ultimate self-creation — but the ability to reshape yourself according to your values is enough for responsibility.
Key names: Daniel Dennett, Harry Frankfurt