What to read | What to think about | What to write
There is no doubt about the article of the century in England. Freedom and Resentment by Peter Strawson, pictured above. Not surprisingly it is reprinted all over the shop. You will find it, for instance, in the Watson collection. Squirrels can just click on the link.
Again not surprisingly, it is a difficult (because rich in ideas) paper. Fortunately, there is an excellent commentary:-
'Accountability', by Jonathan Bennett, in Zak van Straaten (ed.) Philosophical Subjects, Clarendon (Oxford) 1980.
Which also contains Strawson's replies to the various contributors. Bennett's article gives an excellent resume of the Free Will/ Determinism debate prior to Strawson's article. Follow up any references you like. Strawson's position on these matters is recognisably descended from Hume. So you should also revise your understanding of ....
We would also like you to read an idiot article. The trick being to work out what is wrong with it. We (naughtily) let you know in advance that the idea does not work. The idiot article is:
You will find it reprinted in the Watson collection (second edition).
Anyone who would like to read a different take on the connection between free will and responsibility could try the appropriate extracts from Tom Nagel's excellent book The View from Nowhere. If you find you like Nagel, remind yourself to read more of him as soon as you have the time.
We will perhaps post advice after the class. But before the class, think very carefully about the Strawson article, and then think about this problem:
We often allow that certain conditions either remove or at least lessen people's responsibility/accountability for their actions. Here is a short list:
Childhood, dementia, ignorance, alcoholism, certain phobias and manias, coercion.
(Add other conditions to the list as you see fit). Now, should all these be treated in roughly the same way? I.e., is the explanation (of why we allow that they mitigate responsibility) the same in each case? Or different? If the same, what is the explanation? And if different, why different?
And do you think we should add the Laws of Nature to the list?
An essay, please, to the title:
"If determinism is true, we have no free will, and are therefore not responsible for our actions. If determinism is false, then our actions are random, and we are likesise not reponsible for them. Either way, morality is bunk." Discuss.
The title is carefuly chosen. Let it structure your essay.
