Primer Home /
Determinism / A Portrait of the Criminal as a Natural Disaster
A Portrait of the Criminal as a Natural Disaster
Topic: Determinism
by Elvin, 2021 Cohort
Causal determinism is not for the faint of heart; it might be one of the most depressing theories in the field of philosophy. The idea that every event, every human decision is nothing but the result of ‘past causes’ challenges any meaning or moral significance that can be made of our life outcomes. Success under determinism would not be seen as deserved. Criminals and wrong-doers would be no different to natural disasters, thus unable to be considered morally responsible for the horror and suffering that they inflict.
Imagine, for instance, a boy whose family violently abused him from the moment he was born. If the trauma he suffered made him become a murderer, how morally responsible is he considering he cannot control the environment he is born into? Imagine then if we swapped our body, atom for atom, with this murderer. We would have his genes, his traumatic life experience, and his brain. Consequently, would we not commit the same crimes?
Even if there exists some metaphysical force, such as a soul, that might stop us from committing the crimes, how can we control whether or not we have the soul of a murdering psychopath? Either the nature of our soul is determined by causal chains in the same way as our brain, or our soul is randomly ascribed. In both regards, it seems that whether we become billionaires or murderers is as luck-based as whether a natural disaster occurs.
Why then do we consider each other morally responsible for the actions we take and chastise those who commit harm as evil? The answer is intimately linked to criminal justice and morality. Social chastitsation and the concept of guilt and evil are tools that act as causes to deter crime and harmful behaviour. Without a sense of moral responsibility and social pressure, people might more often harm others, as whatever they do, they will not see themselves as being blameworthy.
Although acceptance of determinism can create moral nihilism and loss of meaning, it can also present new ways of conceptualising important issues such as criminal justice. If a criminal’s brain is physiologically determined by past causes going back beyond their birth, it could be difficult to argue that they should be morally accountable for the heinous crimes that endless chains of prior events just happened to produce. At the very least, determinism suggests that criminal sanctions should only be about deterrence, containment and rehabilitation. Retributive justice based on revenge (an eye for an eye) makes little sense as any punitive measure that goes beyond what is necessary to deter and contain crime is simply creating additional misery in the world without benefit. No matter how severe the punishment, people will still commit crimes. Research has shown, for example, that the death penalty does not deter crime more than less severe sentences.
When natural disasters kill innocent people, we do not reprimand them as morally repugnant, nor desire retributive justice. Maybe it is time we also stopped equating vengeance with justice when a human causes harm.
Additional resources
Sam Harris’s Article on Free Will: https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
Frank Urbaniok, Arja Laubacher and Judith Hardegger’s Journal Article on Neurobiological Determinism: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306624X10395474
Explore this topic further#
Return to
Determinism in the Primer
Disclaimer#
This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au
Causal determinism is not for the faint of heart; it might be one of the most depressing theories in the field of philosophy. The idea that every event, every human decision is nothing but the result of ‘past causes’ challenges any meaning or moral significance that can be made of our life outcomes. Success under determinism would not be seen as deserved. Criminals and wrong-doers would be no different to natural disasters, thus unable to be considered morally responsible for the horror and suffering that they inflict.
Imagine, for instance, a boy whose family violently abused him from the moment he was born. If the trauma he suffered made him become a murderer, how morally responsible is he considering he cannot control the environment he is born into? Imagine then if we swapped our body, atom for atom, with this murderer. We would have his genes, his traumatic life experience, and his brain. Consequently, would we not commit the same crimes?
Even if there exists some metaphysical force, such as a soul, that might stop us from committing the crimes, how can we control whether or not we have the soul of a murdering psychopath? Either the nature of our soul is determined by causal chains in the same way as our brain, or our soul is randomly ascribed. In both regards, it seems that whether we become billionaires or murderers is as luck-based as whether a natural disaster occurs.
Why then do we consider each other morally responsible for the actions we take and chastise those who commit harm as evil? The answer is intimately linked to criminal justice and morality. Social chastitsation and the concept of guilt and evil are tools that act as causes to deter crime and harmful behaviour. Without a sense of moral responsibility and social pressure, people might more often harm others, as whatever they do, they will not see themselves as being blameworthy.
Although acceptance of determinism can create moral nihilism and loss of meaning, it can also present new ways of conceptualising important issues such as criminal justice. If a criminal’s brain is physiologically determined by past causes going back beyond their birth, it could be difficult to argue that they should be morally accountable for the heinous crimes that endless chains of prior events just happened to produce. At the very least, determinism suggests that criminal sanctions should only be about deterrence, containment and rehabilitation. Retributive justice based on revenge (an eye for an eye) makes little sense as any punitive measure that goes beyond what is necessary to deter and contain crime is simply creating additional misery in the world without benefit. No matter how severe the punishment, people will still commit crimes. Research has shown, for example, that the death penalty does not deter crime more than less severe sentences.
When natural disasters kill innocent people, we do not reprimand them as morally repugnant, nor desire retributive justice. Maybe it is time we also stopped equating vengeance with justice when a human causes harm.
Additional resources
Sam Harris’s Article on Free Will: https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
Frank Urbaniok, Arja Laubacher and Judith Hardegger’s Journal Article on Neurobiological Determinism: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306624X10395474