Strawson's Argument

Often humans hold the notion that they have complete free will and choice over their actions. Unfortunately, this is a lie, perpetrated by a feeling of choice. In actuality, all choices every single person makes are predetermined by their upbringing and personal attributes and virtues. It is this notion that Strawson deems “The Basic Argument.” Strawson not only argues that humans do not have free will, but also that they have no moral responsibility. If one did not have the power to choose his or her action, how can he or she be held accountable for said action? Though most people believe in free will, that belief is often based of the feeling that they have a choice, and not actual facts or even solid arguments. Suppose you are walking down the street and see a homeless man sitting on the side of the road. He is begging for money and is extremely skinny and dirty. You, an average middle class person with a steady job and a few lose singles, are given a “choice.” To give the money, or to not give the money. To most it seems that this situation is completely within their free will, and that they have complete control over the action they take. But does one really have free choice in deciding whether or not to give the homeless man money? According to Strawson, no. The decision you make in this situation is predetermined by your upbringing and all influences internal and external. If you were brought up being taught that many homeless people use the money given to them to feed drug habits instead of their hunger, you will most likely not give the money. If you are raised with strong values such as generosity and sympathy, you will most likely give the man the money. Those internal factors are what Strawson most fervently credits with what causes people to do things. When entering that situation, you were either already generous and sympathetic or you were …show more content…
The moral implications of making the “right” choice, might be feeling good about yourself, and helping someone in need. But if one has no choice over the action he or she makes, does he or she actually hold moral responsibility for that action? Though Strawson argues that one does not, I believe one in fact does. Just because someone was raised thinking it was acceptable to have no sympathy and outwardly be a jerk, does not mean that he or she should not be held responsible for being a jerk or committing crimes. In the case of Typhoid Mary, originally Mary is not morally responsible for those that she infected and thus killed, because she was unaware she was causing such harm. She is only morally responsible when she finds out she is, in fact, the cause of the deaths and choses to come back to work thus infecting and killing hundreds more. Knowledge of the consequences of her state of being is the key to determining whether or not someone is morally responsible. If a person chose not to give the homeless man money, and the next day the homeless man died of starvation, the person would not be morally responsible because even though his or her action of giving the man money may have saved his life, he or she did not have the knowledge that the man was so close to starvation and