‘has greater need for’. In the same way, if you are exhausted and I am well rested, we might say that, of the two of us, you deserve a holiday, not because you have worked harder – though that might be one reason why you are exhausted – but simply because of your greater need. As we will see, a needs-based system of rewards is the only one that passes the test of fairness.
A dangerous idea?
Is it dangerous to expose the myth of responsibility? According to philosopher Daniel Dennett, ‘Deeming that nobody is ever really responsible for anything they do is step one on the way to a police state that medicalizes all “anti-social” behavior, and that way lies the Gulag.’45 He also warns that it could ‘rob us of our dignity’ and reduce our inclination to engage in moral behaviour. Are these fears legitimate?
That an idea may be used to serve destructive or oppressive ends tells us very little about its truth or value. There is always a battle to decide who will interpret important ideas, to determine whose interests they will serve. In the heat of such conflicts, ideas are stretched, twisted and mangled as the stakes increase. A case in point is the theory of evolution, which revolutionised the way we think about our species and the natural world. Exploring this revolution in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Dennett writes:
From the moment of the publication of Origin of Species in 1859, Charles Darwin’s fundamental idea has inspired intense reactions ranging from ferocious condemnation to ecstatic allegiance, sometimes tantamount to religious zeal. Darwin’s theory has been abused and misrepresented by friend and foe alike. It has been misappropriated to lend scientific respectability to appalling political and social doctrines.46
If Darwin’s idea can be used to justify ‘appalling political and social doctrines’, should it be ignored, suppressed, obfuscated or publicly discredited? Dennett thinks not: ‘There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our curiosity.’ The only way to protect what is of value ‘is to cut through the smokescreens and look at the idea as unflinchingly, as dispassionately as possible’. Facing up to Darwin’s dangerous idea shows that ‘what really matters to us – and ought to matter to us – shines through, transformed but enhanced by its passage through the Darwinian Revolution’.47 Dennett’s reasoning can equally be applied to the ‘sacred myth’ of individual responsibility. If it were to be widely rejected, society would need a conceptual revolution to adjust to its implications. As we will see, understanding the limits on our freedom has the potential, just as with the theory of evolution, to provide a ‘transformed but enhanced’ perspective on what matters most in our lives. Darwin himself rejected the responsibility myth and believed that ‘This view should teach one profound humility, one deserves no credit or blame for anything’ and ‘nor ought one to blame others’.48
Before exploring what this transformation might look like, it is important to recognise that the belief – tacit or explicit – in ultimate responsibility comes with its own dangers. It has been used to justify the cruellest of acts, lending bogus credibility to notions of sin, retribution and ‘just deserts’. It vindicates feelings of entitlement and strengthens the impulse to blame and punish. Recent research has demonstrated empirically the ugly attitudes associated with this way of thinking.
To measure how strongly people identify with the idea that the world is just – that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people – psychologists use the ‘Just World Belief’ scale. A person who scores highly on this scale strongly agrees with statements such as ‘By and large, people get what they deserve’ and ‘People who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves’. Another measure used is the ‘Right Wing Authoritarian’ scale, which asks how strongly people agree with statements like ‘The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance’ and ‘Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways of sinfulness that are ruining us’. Those who score highly on this scale are more willing to submit to authority and more likely to feel hostile towards those who do not.
Psychologists Jasmine Carey and Del Paulhus found that a strong belief in the responsibility myth correlates with high scores on both scales. Their work is part of a growing body of empirical research which strongly suggests that, as our belief in the myth strengthens, so does our tendency to blame victims, advocate harsher punishments, submit to those in power, and perceive extreme economic inequality as fair and just.49 Perhaps it is the promotion of the myth – rather than its rejection – that risks the return of ‘the gulag’.50
A series of studies published in Psychological Science found that when people’s belief in ultimate responsibility was diminished – through exposure to arguments against free will or scientific findings about the brain – they became less punitive.51 Such evidence suggests that dispensing with the responsibility myth would actually be conducive to ethical behaviour rather than an impediment to it, and be an important step towards compassion rather than a rejection of morality. After all, if we are not responsible for our achievements and failings, we are all on an equal footing: ultimately, no one deserves more joy, happiness or freedom than anyone else. This does not oblige us to treat everyone in the same way, but it does demonstrate that the deprivation experienced by some and the privilege enjoyed by others cannot be justified on the grounds that each group deserves what it gets. From this perspective, we discover a sturdy foundation for equality, empathy and compassion.
It would be immoral to ignore just how much luck is involved in moral behaviour itself.52 Actions that we regard as unethical are – like any behaviour – ultimately a product of formative conditions, which is why those who lack compassion for others are no less deserving of it themselves. Nevertheless, there are times when it is difficult to be compassionate. Invariably, when we suffer at the hands of someone else, there are powerful and complex emotions to work through before compassion is a viable response – and for some of us, in certain situations, it may never be within our grasp. Recognising this is itself a requirement of compassion.
It can be hard to forgive ourselves for the pain we cause others. Yet there is evidence to suggest that doing so is important for our physical and, especially, our mental health.53 Feelings of self-loathing, it seems, exacerbate cycles of destructive behaviour. As the saying goes, ‘hurt people hurt people’. We should never forget that the world marks us before we have a chance to mark it. This perspective invites us to look beyond our own guilt and failings to the systemic and cultural basis of our identity. Perhaps a broader perspective can help to break cycles of self-destructive behaviour. What is done cannot be undone: the important question is always ‘What will be done next?’ 54
We are rooted in our environment and depend on its offerings no less than a tree whose health is inextricable from the sunlight, air and soil that surround it. We, too, begin as a seed whose growth and development depend on its environment. Our capacity for happiness, confidence, ecstasy, empathy, love and hate, is not of our own making. None of this means that we cannot change, learn and grow, or that making the effort to do so is unimportant – on the contrary, it is essential – but it does mean that the extent to which we succeed in our attempt, relative to others, is not something for which we can take credit. Just as the tiny seed that grows into a giant redwood cannot take credit for its height, we cannot take credit for what we become. In an important sense, our achievements are not really our achievements. We are notes in life’s melody, not its composer.
To deny that we are truly responsible is not to deny the possibility of principled and ethical behaviour. We do not need to hold a person responsible for some admirable trait to value what they are. We treasure the vivid colour, elegant shape and aesthetic beauty of the rose without imputing any responsibility to it. The same is true for all of nature in its complexity and magnificence – including human beings. Why should we need to hold Nina Simone responsible
