In my last article, I introduced the concept of Naturalism, which is the idea that humans are fully included in the natural world, with no spiritual essence or immaterial soul. All our actions, thoughts, emotions and desires are the results of biochemical activity in the physical brain. Every action has a cause, and nothing we do occurs outside of the causal chain. There is no "free" will in the classical, Cartesian dualist sense, as every choice we make is based on myriad factors such as environment, upbringing, genetic inheritance, etc.

One of the most common reactions to deterministic explanations for behavior is the understandable (but -- as I hope to show -- unwarranted) fear that since our actions are determined by something other than our "free" will, there is no room for personal responsibility. After all, how can we hold people responsible if they were not the ultimate originators of their behavior, if their action was the not result of their own free choice?

Since everything has a cause and is, in turn, a cause of something else, holding someone accountable for his actions plays a part in determining future actions. For example, if I know I could be punished for an action, the threat of punishment will influence my decision whether to act. There are also social benefits to being held responsible for one's actions, a primary one being a peaceful society. If no one felt they would be held accountable for their actions, society would break down. By the same token, our basic desires for self-preservation and for the safety of those we care about cause us to hold our fellow citizens responsible for their actions. We institute deterrent sanctions which can cause people to think twice before they hurt us or our loved ones.

Traditional justifications for retributive punishment are undercut by naturalism, and this has important implications for the manner in which we treat criminals. Retribution is usually justified by reference to the idea that the offender could have simply chosen not to commit a crime in a given situation, and was therefore ultimately responsible for his actions, and so deserves harsh punishment. Within the naturalistic framework, however, once a person is no longer seen as having freely chosen (that is, outside of the causal loop), it becomes clear that he could not have done otherwise in that situation. If we could "rewind the tape" and go back in time to the situation with all factors -- genetics, education, environment, brain chemistry, etc. -- exactly the same, the exact same behavior would result from the exact same causes. The person isn't ultimately responsible, and so is not deserving -- in the traditional sense -- of punishment. So, by taking the naturalistic view, our motivation and justification for such steep penalties such as execution, solitary confinement, or unnecessarily long and harsh prison sentences decreases.

If the criminal is capable of being motivated to act differently next time (that is to say, he's able to be rehabilitated), then hopefully he would be returned to society once it's clear he’s changed. There are, of course, certain individuals (the criminally insane, for example) who must be kept away from society, both for their safety and ours.

So, rather than removing personal responsibility from the picture, the naturalistic worldview shows that holding people accountable is actually an essential part of the chain of causation that can shape good behavior. Furthermore, naturalism makes us more likely to be compassionate and effective in how we hold people accountable, since as we've seen it undercuts justifications for harsh punishment that ignore the causes of crime. This suggests that the criminal justice system might change to emphasize such things as crime prevention, rehabilitation, providing restitution to victims, and healing the dysfunctional families and communities that produce crime in the first place.

Seeing that personal responsibility and an effective criminal justice system don't require a "free" will outside of the causation chain should make it easier to accept the naturalistic view of ourselves. We don't have to be "little gods" with the supernatural power to act independently of causes and circumstances to be held accountable. We just have to be rational, which most of us are. And once we understand and accept naturalism, we are still just as motivated to hold people responsible -- compassionately.

There are of course other worries that arise when people first encounter naturalism; the Center for Naturalism has many answers to these and other questions at Encountering Naturalism; see also CFN's Resources page at naturalism.org.

November 16, 2004