When I researched the case of the brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez, who according to their defense lawyer, killed their parents out of fear and as a result of being sexually abused by their father for many years, it made me wonder if there is a justification for someone’s violent actions. Did the Menendez brother intentionally kill or did they act out due to the years of alleged abuses they had suffered?
I have no doubt that prior sexual or other physical abuse can cause some sort of emotional instability or even mental disorder but can this lead to violent acts by the victim against their abuser and make the abuser not be responsible for their actions? Does the abuse excuse claim that it was necessary for the brothers to kill heir own parents because they were just innocent victims of their environment and thus not responsible.
This brings up the question: To what extent are we responsible for our own actions? Is there a cause of forces that makes us do things or do we really have a choice in life? Do we have free will? I do believe that experiences form us and we are indeed a product of our environment. But what dictates our beliefs, morals, emotions, values and thus influences our actions?
There seems to be a broad source of influences beginning with the time we were conceived. It starts with our genetic make up, one set of biological parents decide (or do not intentionally decide) to produce life (us). And parental influence doesn’t quite stop there in most cases. They raise us and enforce their own beliefs and values on us, in most cases with good intentions of course. It continues with social influence/experiences, education and all sorts of life experiences throughout our entire life. We are constantly introduced to new experiences and most people change or at least re-consider previous views over time in light of these experiences.
In philosophy, the view that every event has at least one cause is termed determinism. It claims that we do not have free will, because our choices and actions are caused by prior experiences.
Hard determinism is the belief that there is no free will. Everything happens because of a previous experience that influenced it. According to hard determinism, environment, heredity, and other influences determine people to act the way they do and because of that, they are not responsible for their actions. But if people are not free and thus responsible for their actions, then why do we even attempt to hold them responsible? Does this mean we do so only to influence future behavior? Some theories support the claim that human beings are free and can be held responsible for their actions. In contrast to hard determinism, soft determinism says that we are determined and are nonetheless still free. According to the soft determinist, it is an individual’s desire or belief that forms the basis for the choice of his or her actions. Libertarianism is the viewpoint based on the idea that there are many caused events in the world. The human choices, however, are NOT caused and these are seen as the free actions.
Aristotle’s view is very consistent with soft determinism it seems like. He said this about free will/free choice: “We are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. We are responsible for any action that results from our "culpable" ignorance or negligence if any reasonable person in our circumstances could have avoided such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a "reasonable" person thinks, and that means not allowing ourselves to become selfish or lazy. Ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundation on which our actions are based. We are not responsible for involuntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which result from coercion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.”
If the Menendez brothers didn’t have a moral obligation to do right because of their bad circumstances, why do the courts have a legal permission to understand their bad circumstances and exercise leniency?
My personal believe is that our decisions are NOT fully dictated. Though determinism is true, it does not rule out freedom and responsibility. As for the Menendez case, let’s assume they were sexually abused by their father and this had a great psychological effect on them and their behavior, I still would have to argue they were in the position to make choices, including the choice to kill their parents. They knew what they were doing, even though they were abused as children
If we are only the products of our environment, then all of us are just machines and can’t be held responsible for doing what we are programmed to do. We wouldn’t have souls anymore and merely respond to the pushing of certain buttons. I don’t think we are machines. People are in part products of their environment but they still possess something like human dignity which to me would have to include “free will” and also responsibility for one’s own actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment