Introduction
This essay engages with Robert Blatchford’s arguments on free will and moral responsibility as presented in his work “Not Guilty” from Voices of Freedom. Blatchford challenges traditional notions of free will, positing that human decisions are predominantly shaped by heredity, environment, and past experiences, thus rendering the concept of autonomous choice largely illusory. He suggests that since actions are reactions to prior conditions, holding individuals fully accountable for their behaviour is unjust. While acknowledging the deterministic framework Blatchford employs, this essay critically examines the limitations of his perspective, particularly his neglect of individual agency, moral reflection, and the societal need for accountability. Through a structured analysis, I will revisit his key claims, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and argue that while external factors significantly influence decisions, personal responsibility and the capacity for change remain essential considerations in ethics and society.
Blatchford’s Deterministic View of Free Will
Blatchford’s central contention is that free will is not truly free but determined by pre-existing factors such as heredity and environment. He argues that human character and conduct are formed by inherited traits and social conditions, implying that every decision is a product of uncontrollable influences (Blatchford, 1906). This deterministic stance frames human actions as part of a causal chain, where ‘choice’ is merely an outcome of past experiences rather than a genuine exercise of autonomy. For instance, Blatchford writes, “The free will party seem to think of the will as something independent of the man… If that were so, it would not prove the man responsible” (Blatchford, 1906, p. 474). Here, he critiques the notion of an independent will, suggesting it is inseparable from a person’s reasoning and circumstances. While this perspective aligns with metaphysical principles of cause and effect, it arguably oversimplifies human decision-making by presenting individuals as passive products of external forces, neglecting the role of personal reflection or potential for change.
Limitations in Blatchford’s Argument
Despite the logical coherence of Blatchford’s reasoning, his argument exhibits notable gaps. He largely overlooks aspects such as genetic differences or varying levels of intelligence, which can influence behaviour independently of identical environments or upbringings. Furthermore, Blatchford’s view appears to treat individuals as blank slates, shaped solely by external conditions, without accounting for the dynamic nature of perspective and morality. People’s sense of right and wrong can evolve through new experiences, relationships, or knowledge acquisition, suggesting that while past influences are significant, they do not wholly dictate future choices (Dennett, 2003). For example, an individual raised in a strict moral framework might later reject those teachings upon encountering alternative viewpoints. This capacity for change challenges Blatchford’s assertion that actions are strictly predetermined, indicating a degree of personal agency that he fails to address adequately.
Ethics, Society, and Personal Agency
In terms of ethics and societal function, Blatchford’s hard determinism struggles to hold practical weight. While he argues that individuals should not be held fully accountable due to the influence of circumstance, suggesting society focus on improving conditions to prevent harmful behaviour, this perspective risks undermining the mechanisms of justice and personal growth (Strawson, 1994). Laws and moral systems rely on the premise that individuals possess the capacity to reflect and make decisions, even if influenced by prior events. Indeed, as Blatchford himself illustrates with the example of two men in a bar—one choosing not to drink due to awareness of its dangers—reasoning plays a role in decision-making (Blatchford, 1906). However, people often act against their own moral codes due to emotional conflicts or situational pressures, which demonstrates that while the past shapes us, it does not entirely control us. Therefore, acknowledging personal agency remains crucial for encouraging self-improvement and maintaining societal order.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Robert Blatchford’s “Not Guilty” presents a compelling deterministic view of free will, emphasising the role of heredity, environment, and past experiences in shaping human decisions. His argument that actions are reactions to prior conditions raises important questions about the fairness of moral accountability. However, as I have discussed, Blatchford’s framework is limited by its exclusion of individual agency, moral evolution, and the practical necessities of societal systems. While external factors undeniably influence behaviour, the capacity for reflection, learning, and change suggests that personal responsibility cannot be entirely dismissed. This balance between determinism and agency has significant implications for ethics and justice, indicating a need to address root causes of harmful behaviour while still encouraging individuals to take accountability for their choices. Ultimately, my viewpoint aligns partially with Blatchford’s recognition of external influences but maintains that personal agency remains a critical factor in understanding human conduct and fostering a just society.
References
- Blatchford, R. (1906) Not Guilty: A Defence of the Bottom Dog. Clarion Press.
- Dennett, D. C. (2003) Freedom Evolves. Viking Press.
- Strawson, P. F. (1994) Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. Routledge.
