The infamous JoJo thought experiment - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud

Key Concepts

• Deep Self View: Moral responsibility stems from actions reflecting one’s deepest values and commitments.
• Moral Responsibility: The extent to which an individual is accountable for their actions.
• Moral Competence: The capacity to understand and apply moral principles, and to self-reflect on one’s values.
• Incompatibilism: The belief that free will and determinism are incompatible, thus negating moral responsibility.
• Compatibilism: The belief that free will and determinism can coexist, allowing for moral responsibility.
• JoJo Dilemma: A philosophical thought experiment exploring the impact of upbringing on moral responsibility.

The Problem of JoJo: Upbringing and Moral Accountability

The central case study presented revolves around JoJo, a dictator who inherits a ruthless reign from his father, Jo the First. While Jo the First’s cruelty is apparent, the question arises whether JoJo bears the same moral responsibility for his actions, given his upbringing devoid of exposure to alternative values or ethical considerations. The narrative highlights that JoJo’s entire worldview is shaped by the environment he’s raised in, witnessing only obedience and praise for his father’s actions, never experiencing fear or dissent. This atypical upbringing forms the basis for a complex philosophical debate regarding moral accountability.

The Deep Self View: Responsibility Rooted in Values

Philosophers Gary Watson and Harry Frankfurt, proponents of the “Deep Self View,” argue that individuals are morally responsible for actions stemming from their true selves – actions that genuinely reflect their deepest values and commitments. This perspective posits that external forces like duress or intoxication can mitigate responsibility, but JoJo lacks such an excuse. His actions, according to this view, are a direct product of his internalized values, making him fully accountable. The core tenet is that acting in accordance with one’s deeply held beliefs, regardless of their origin, constitutes moral responsibility.

Challenging the Deep Self: The Role of Formation

Susan Wolf challenges the straightforward application of the Deep Self View to JoJo’s case. While acknowledging that JoJo’s actions reflect his values, Wolf emphasizes the importance of how those values were formed. She argues that JoJo’s severely compromised upbringing diminishes his moral responsibility. Wolf’s reasoning centers on the idea that a person’s formative environment significantly influences their values, and it’s unfair to hold someone fully accountable for actions rooted in a distorted or limited moral education. As Wolf states, considering the genesis of someone’s “deep self” is crucial when assessing moral responsibility.

Determinism, Free Will, and the Incompatibilist/Compatibilist Divide

Wolf’s case prompts a broader discussion about free will and determinism. “Incompatibilists” believe that if all actions are predetermined by factors like environment and biology, then genuine moral responsibility is impossible. This perspective suggests that if JoJo’s cruelty was inevitable given his upbringing, he cannot be justly blamed. Conversely, “Compatibilists” maintain that moral responsibility can coexist with determinism, even if decisions are the inevitable outcome of past events. This centuries-old debate underscores the difficulty in reconciling the concept of free will with the influence of external factors.

Moral Competence: Knowing and Learning Right from Wrong

A key element of Wolf’s argument centers on JoJo’s lack of “moral competence.” She contends that JoJo not only lacks a conventional understanding of right and wrong but also lacks the capacity to learn or develop such an understanding. This absence of moral learning ability, coupled with his continued cruelty as an adult, leads Wolf to suggest that fully blaming JoJo for his actions is misplaced. The argument hinges on the idea that moral responsibility requires both knowledge of moral principles and the ability to reflect on and potentially change one’s values.

Counterfactuals and the Possibility of Change

The discussion then explores counterfactual scenarios to further examine JoJo’s responsibility. The hypothetical existence of JoJa, a sister raised in the same environment who rejects tyranny, suggests that JoJo could have chosen differently, thereby increasing his moral responsibility. Similarly, the scenario of a court member attempting to instill moral values in young JoJo, even if ultimately unsuccessful, implies that JoJo had opportunities to develop moral competence. These thought experiments reinforce the idea that the more chances an individual has to learn and embrace ethical principles, the less justifiable it becomes to excuse their harmful actions.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The JoJo dilemma ultimately presents a nuanced challenge to traditional notions of moral responsibility. While the Deep Self View emphasizes accountability for actions aligned with one’s values, Wolf’s critique highlights the crucial role of upbringing and moral competence. The debate between incompatibilists and compatibilists further complicates the issue, questioning the very foundation of free will. The case doesn’t offer a definitive answer but compels a critical examination of how we assess blame and accountability, particularly in cases involving individuals raised in profoundly atypical and morally deficient environments. The central takeaway is that determining moral responsibility requires considering not only what someone does, but also how their values were formed and whether they possessed the capacity to choose otherwise.