Relevance of Moral Responsibility to Reward & Punishment

• Hard determinism: freedom and moral responsibility

  If determinism is true then there can be no freedom required for moral responsibility. It would be pointless punishing those who commit crimes or rewarding those who do none of these things because all such events are determined and unavoidable. If our human behaviour is determined, so is our system of rewards and punishments
• Hard determinism: religion

  Any idea of 'sin' against God becomes redundant because no one can be blamed for doing what their determined nature makes them do. This also means that Christianity is incoherent because its central doctrine of Jesus' atonement for human sin by his crucifixion and resurrection is pointless, as is the doctrine to reward those with heaven. Moreover, why would a loving God predestine some to heaven and some to eternal suffering? There is no escape; no moral behaviour can change the predetermined outcome of eternal punishment
• Hard determinism: Skinner

  Skinner believed that his work would lead to reform of reward and punishment. He argued that punishments are not effective, and that once the punishment is over the offender will return to their original behaviour. Therefore we should make changes to our traditional practices, and adapt methods of reform instead. According to psychological conditioning, people can be directed towards their desires and wants, but they can also be conditioned so that in the future they do nothing that harms society
• Critiques of hard determinism

  - libertarians argue that any attempt to apply conditioning must be determined by existing conditions so we might as well do nothing

  - for a psychologist to engage a patient in reconditioning must therefore be a complete waste of time; moral responsibility is merely what is and not what ought to be

  - Skinner's recommendations about punishment and credit are acknowledgement that people really do have the freedom to do otherwise, so Skinner is a 'closet libertarian
• Libertarianism: moral responsibility

  The libertarian must hold people responsible for their actions; so praise and blame, reward and punishment are part of the libertarian strategy for leading people to be morally responsible. The law in the UK acknowledges diminished responsibility for a number of different types of people and situation; such as children, those suffering from depression and the mentally unstable.
• Libertarianism: ought implies can

  We feel the moral compulsion concerning what we 'ought' to do, which strongly suggests that we are free to do it. Moreover our freedom is clear from the fact that we are able to override that compulsion and do otherwise. At the same time, we feel guilt and remorse when we fail to do what we ought
• Compatibilism: determinism v free will

  If I perform an act then I am responsible. 'Could I have done otherwise?' —> determinist: No, libertarian: Yes. The Compatibilist: yes, if I had desired to do otherwise
• Compatibilism: Hume

  Hume argues that people are blameworthy only where our choices come from our character. People's actions are judged only in so far as indications of the internal character. Hume's approach to punishment is utilitarian in character, its function is to improve society. Punishment should be part of social engineering through which fear of punishment helps to repress anti-social behaviour; rewards stimulate a virtuous character. Moreover, for Hume, this approach shows why the Christian idea of eternal reward in heaven and eternal punishment in hell makes little sense
• Critiques of Compatibilism

  Compatibilism and determinism both lean towards the therapeutic model, but there is strong 'common-sense' feeling among libertarians and in the thinking of the ordinary person that the punishment should fit the crime.