Preface

The Stubborn System of Moral Responsibility is not a direct attack on moral responsibility, though its purpose is to raise doubts concerning the legitimacy of belief in moral responsibility. Rather, it is an attempt to answer a question that should be of interest to both moral responsibility skeptics and moral responsibility believers: Why is belief in individual moral responsibility so strong? Whatever one’s judgment concerning the strength of the many fascinating philosophical arguments that have been given to support belief in moral responsibility, it is clear that the commitment to moral responsibility is stronger—among both philosophers and the folk—than the arguments in its favor could justify. So what are the other factors that make belief in the moral responsibility system so robust and resilient? The examination of those extraphilosophical factors ranges across biology, psychology, criminology, sociology, and even touches on economics.

The belief in moral responsibility is not an isolated belief (like my belief that I turned off the light in my office), the truth or falsity of which will have little impact on the remainder of my beliefs. To the contrary, it is a belief that is deeply embedded in a larger belief system, and doubting or rejecting moral responsibility will involve major adjustments elsewhere in a wide range of important beliefs and values. Thus, examining the strength of belief in moral responsibility will involve deeper inquiry into its relation with other beliefs as well as scrutiny of the system in which moral responsibility functions (and the system in which it flourishes). P. F. Strawson insisted that belief in moral responsibility is a vital element in a way of life; examining the way of life in which moral responsibility is central involves inquiries that go well beyond the standard philosophical terrain.

Many people have been supportive in making this book possible. Obviously, many of those who have been most supportive and most stimulating will not agree with a word of it. Above all, they certainly do not deserve blame for it (after all, no one is ever morally responsible), though they certainly have considerable causal responsibility for the book.

I am lucky to be working in a department that is philosophically stimulating, very congenial and supportive, and always entertaining. Having both philosophy and religious studies colleagues is a special benefit, broadening my perspective and interests in ways too numerous to catalog. Tom Shipka, our former chair, not only supported my work generously while chair, but has also provided invaluable guidance and support during the years I have served as department chair and continues to alert me to a variety of fascinating books and articles. Brendan Minogue reads much of my work, and his insightful, joyous criticisms (as well as his tremendous help in elucidating a wide range of issues related to philosophy of science) have been invaluable. Christopher Bache and I have fundamentally different world views, and his cordial but deep challenges often force me to think much harder about some very basic issues. Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez is a meticulous reader who gives excellent advice as well as much appreciated encouragement. Deborah Mower alerts me to a wide variety of research in psychology that I would have otherwise missed, and she often raises important questions and objections that force me to rethink positions. “Tess” Tessier is a wondrous and inexhaustible resource for all things mythical and symbolic. Mustansir Mir not only enriches my life with wonderful poetry, but has also aided me in appreciating the riches of Islamic thought from many centuries. Mark Vopat is a wonderful resource on ethics, especially applied ethics and ethical issues related to the family; and I shall be eternally grateful to him for finally getting dancing penguins on our departmental website. Alan Tomhave is my trusted guide in political philosophy as well as philosophy of law. Victor Wan-Tatah is a cordial and reliable source on contemporary developments in religion and politics. Michael Jerryson is a wonderful new addition to our department, with a multitude of interests and a remarkable knowledge of Asian religions. We also have a wonderful group of people who teach a variety of courses with us, and from whom I have learned much (ranging from bioethics to criminal law), including Julie Aultman, Eric Boynton, Walter Carvin, Lou D’Apolito, Sister Nancy Dawson, Martina Haines, Zoreh “Z” Kermani, Jeff Limbian, Vince Lisi, Sarah Lown, Bernie Oakes, Regina Rogers, Joseph Schonberger, Donna Sloan, Arnold Smith, Lynette Stratford, Andrew Stypinski, and Richard White. The vital center of the department, who adds much to its welcoming, warm friendliness and everything to its orderly efficiency, is our remarkable departmental administrator, Mary Dillingham, who is ably assisted by our talented and congenial student workers, Gina Ponzio and, more recently, Nicole Pavlansky. That we have superb student workers is no accident: Mary selects and trains them. Everything done in the department is facilitated by the aid of a very supportive dean, Shearle Furnish; an associate dean, Jane Kestner, who has fixed more of my mistakes than I care to mention; and a provost, Ikram Khawaja, who has given us constant strong support.

Outside the department, I am indebted to Homer Warren for literally dozens of luncheon conversations that are always enjoyable and tremendously helpful: Homer invariably sees implications and issues that deepen my understanding of the questions we discuss. Special thanks also to Fred Alexander, “Luke” Lucas, and Lauren Schroeder for years of wonderful conversations that careen into a wide variety of topics, and which are always fun and sometimes enlightening. Many others have enriched my understanding and enlarged my curiosity on a wide variety of subjects; they include Howard Mettee, Charles Singler, Paul Sracic, Keith Lepak, Stephen Flora, Lia Ruttan, Gary Salvner, Tom Henricks, Judy Henricks, Nawal Ammar, and Robert Weaver.

Three philosophical friends of many years have been of special importance to my work. Richard Double’s brilliant writing and delightful conversations on issues related to free will have been an invaluable guide through the entire range of free will questions. George Graham has long been my guide through some particularly important psychological work that I would not have discovered, and the significance of which I would not have appreciated, without our conversations and without his deeply insightful books. Several long and intense conversations with Robert Kane—not nearly as many as I would like—as well as his rigorous but very readable work have had a huge influence on my thoughts, and certainly pushed me to think much harder than I otherwise would have done about this entire range of questions.

In recent visits to Tallahassee I have had the pleasure of luncheon discussions with Randy Clarke, Al Mele, and (before he moved to Arizona) Mike McKenna; those lively luncheons were not only a great pleasure but also gave me a much clearer picture of several key issues.

Thomas W. Clark not only runs a website—Naturalism.org—that invariably offers very insightful discussions and papers and reviews, but also his comments on my work have been extremely helpful (we agree on almost everything, and so Clark’s comments on the few points of disagreement are always very challenging). In addition, Tom made possible a three-way online discussion with Dan Dennett—on the arguments and claims in Against Moral Responsibility—that provided a most penetrating and challenging and helpful analysis of that book. Whatever the success or failure of the current book, that discussion was this book’s major motivation. Dennett’s work, in its rich variety, has been my most frequent target in arguing against moral responsibility; but obviously that is because I find Dennett’s arguments consistently among the most interesting and challenging and innovative.

Special thanks to the members of the Southwestern Philosophical Society, who gave me an opportunity to try out some of the ideas in chapter 11 at their November 2013 meeting. The discussion following the paper was very helpful. Thanks also to Gregg Caruso for arranging the session and for being a commentator, and to Ben Vilhauer for his comments; and to both, for a most enjoyable and edifying evening of discussion following the talk. I am also grateful to Gregg for the opportunity to contribute a chapter to his excellent anthology, The Illusion of Free Will, published by Lexington in 2013; and to Lexington for permission to use some of that material in this book.

I’m particularly grateful to Thomas Nadelhoffer for inviting me to spend a month as a “featured author,” and to all at the Flickers of Freedom site who made it such an enjoyable and productive and thought-provoking experience. For many of us, from many different perspectives, who share a fascination (or obsession) with questions about free will and moral responsibility, Flickers of Freedom is the essential forum for valuable discussions.

Thanks to five anonymous MIT Press referees, who read an earlier draft of the book and gave excellent detailed critiques and saved me from many— obviously not all—mistakes; and to my editor, Phil Laughlin, who swiftly found the excellent referees and handles all the details with smooth efficiency. Thanks to Lisa Brown for a meticulous job of copy editing. Thanks also to Judith Feldmann, for her efficient, professional, and supportive work in overseeing the book safely through production.

My richest source of joy and support is my family: my wife, Mary, who combines warmth, kindness, and affection with great skill in, and knowledge of, clinical psychology; my sons, Russell and Adam, who are the joys of my life and my greatest source of pride; my wonderful and superbly philosophical daughter-in-law, Robyn; and my absolutely amazing grandson, Nathanael Carmine Waller, who at three months of age already shows unmistakable signs of deep philosophical wisdom.