The history of bizarre practices in the previous blog, which is, in fact, about blameworthiness, concludes with a thought experiment about blameworthiness.
Imagine resting in a clay pan under a tree on a warm spring day. Suddenly, a heavy branch breaks off the tree, falls, and hits you on the head. You need stitches and are sore for weeks. Who deserves the blame for this incident?
Imagine resting under the same tree on a warm spring day. Suddenly, you are attacked by a dingo. You need stitches and are traumatised and not well for quite some time. This problem is different in a few interesting ways, but these do not include blameworthiness or free will on the part of a self-aware, autonomous “solid self ” in the
form of the dingo.
Now imagine you are attacked by a ten-year-old child with a baseball bat. You need stitches and are not well for quite some time. This problem is different in a few interesting ways once again. Is one of them that it includes the blameworthiness or a free will by a a self-aware, autonomous “solid self ” in the form of the child?
Now imagine a twelve-year-old child attacking you. Twelve is the age of criminal responsibility in Australia. A solid self endowed with free will and blameworthiness has miraculously emerged.
Where in the mind, brain or child's body did this happen, exactly? Or does the child suddenly have a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ that carries this responsibility?
Now imagine that it was a mentally disabled grown man with a baseball bat who attacked you. An able-bodied, angry grown man….
Where in this sequence does a solid self endowed with free will and blameworthiness come in, and how?
Image by <a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/summer-gradient-reading-books-illustration_28093202.htm#query=person%20reading%20under%20a%20gumtree&position=10&from_view=search&track=ais">Freepik</a>
Comments