Ethics
Referring to the philosophical thought of F. Nietzsche and J. -P. Sartre, the candidate develops his own reflections on the subject of individual responsibility.
In most Western countries, people become fully accountable for their actions at the age of eighteen. However, not being legally liable to prosecution does not imply not being responsible at all.
When a man is assassinated, most people expect the killer to be punished by law. Yet, who has the right to determine whether someone is accountable for something or not? How can we unambiguously define what falls within the boundaries of individual responsibility?
Firstly, it is worth considering the relationship between the concepts of free will and responsibility. In “L’Essere e il Nulla”, philosopher J. P. Sartre states that human beings are condemned to be free and, therefore, have to realise that they’re the only cause of some events. However, in a deterministic universe, where everything would be predictable and already determined, mankind would be deprived of free will. Therefore, making a decision would become impossible, since human behaviour would necessarily follow a precise course just like every other aspect of reality. At this point, no one could be considered responsible for their actions, as people would not differ from mere machines. However, from a scientific point of view our universe is not deterministic, which therefore means that the aforementioned hypothesis cannot be accepted. Quantum fluctuations, in fact, add an uncertainty factor to the great scheme of things, which could potentially allow us to make truly free and unpredictable decisions.
Having said that, we now need to determine where exactly individual responsibility comes into play in human behaviour. Whenever someone is on the verge of consciously performing an action, a decision has to be made. That’s because humans are constantly faced with multiple choices in life, and it’s up to them to select the most suitable one according to three main factors, which are morality, justice and utility. Yet, none of them involves the individual’s responsibility. Morality deals with what feels wrong and what feels right in the mind of the individual, thus being totally subjective. Nonetheless, morality is determined uniquely by biological factors and by the environment the humans are subjected to, therefore making them unaccountable for what their morality tells them. Justice, instead, consists in the set of rules determined by the community. However, since laws are written according to the morality of the majority and not of everyone, the individual is once again not responsible. Lastly, utility is related to understanding what action can bring the most benefits to the author. Hence, it uniquely depends on the circumstances and not on the individual, who is therefore unaccountable.
So, if none of us can be considered liable for these three elements of decision-making, how can we not negate the value of individual responsibility? In my opinion, the way in which the individual bases his decisions upon these three factors is what he’s truly responsible for. That’s because, unlike the other elements, this part of the process of decision-making is what uniquely depends on the individual free will. In conclusion, the concept of individual responsibility has a real value in a non-deterministic universe and consists in the arbitrary choice of the individual when balancing morality, justice and utility.