Responsibility And The Limits Of Evil Gary Watson Analysis

P.F. Strawson and Gary Watson’s “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil”
Gary Watson shares the true story of the serial killer Robert Harris in his essay “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil”. This inclusive narrative shares of a man who was once a very sensible young boy who found himself on the south tier of Death Row in San Quentin Prison. Through this story, the reader learns first about Robert Harris’s crime and then about his upbringing. Both of which are stories that one could consider hard to read and even consider to be a true story. Those who knew Robert Harris claimed that he was a man that did not care about life. He did not care about himself nor anyone else. Each inmate and deputy, from the prision, who was questioned about

Harris provided a strong claim that if anyone deserved the capital punishment, it was Robert Harris.
On July 5, 1978, Daniel Harris, Robert’s brother, was with Robert as they planned to rob a bank. During this day, Robert did many things that could be considered psychotic. He killed two 16-year-old boys and laughed quite a bit about it. Robert thought it would be funny to pretend to be police officers and kill other police officers. This was not his only crime though, he had been convicted of car theft at age 15 and later arrested twice for torturing animals. Robert was also convicted of manslaughter for being a neighbor to death after a dispute. Many people claimed that he was flat out mean.
In prison, Robert Harris was involved in several fights and was always trying to take things that other inmates had. He would make loud noises in his cell in attempts to keep people awake and laughing about it. He was a filthy man and just never seemed to care about anything.
Robert did not have an easy childhood and many blame his criminal actions on his upbringing. His rough childhood started before he was even born. The day of his birth, January 15, 1953 his mother had been kicked in the stomach by his abusive father. Robert’s father was also an alcoholic and had been arrested several times.
Growing up, Robert Harris was one of nine children. Both of his parents acted as if they hated him and he was subject to much abuse. Robert had a learning disability and a speech problem. He was teased at school. Barbara Harris, Robert’s sister, claimed that Robert would beg for love and physical contact, but neither parent would give this to him. She also claimed that he was the most sensitive of all of the children as he cried and cried when the family watched ‘Bambi’. Harris was also raped several times and he even attempted suicide twice. Almost anyone who hears his story would say that he lived a hard life.
The question of what or who is to blame for Robert Harris’s crime has been debated by many people.

P. F. Strawson was an English philosopher that fought strongly for the idea of compatibilism. Compatibilist see that libertarian free will and hard determinism are extremely different and there must be a compromise. Free will says that a human's actions are freely decided by the agent, while hard determinism argues that all past events will determine what is to come in the future. Compatibilism believe that in a mix of both libertarian free will and hard determinism. This is also known as soft determinism. The ideology of compatibilism says that both an action is determined, that is, that it must happen, but it can also be self-determined. But, where do we draw the line? What parts of our life are determined for us? What actions do we decide? These are all questions that come up for those who argue against

compatibilism.
Despite the fact that it is unclear whether or not to blame Harris directly for his crimes, compatibilists would dismiss the allegation that because of upbringing, his crime was the inevitable result of causes outside of his control.
Harry Frankfurt, a contemporary American philosopher, claims that many parts of the argument for compatibilism is not practical and must be reconsidered.

He states, “A person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise”. Frankfurt defends the idea that one must be morally responsible in some sense rather than just blaming the past, in a rather pessimistic manner. He also suggests that you are not responsible if you could not have avoided the situation and decision that you made. In Harris’s case, Frankfurt would say that Harris could be held responsible for his actions even though there is a possibility that Harris could not have acted otherwise. In P.F. Strawson’s essay “Freedom and Resentment”, he states, “This is that the notions of moral guilt, of blame, of moral responsibility are inherently confused and that we can see this to be so if we consider the consequences either of the truth of determinism or of its falsity” (72). Whether or not you one has the ability to control their actions, they still have the freedom to express feelings and emotions subsequent to their determined actions. We experience consequences in regards to our actions and most would even say morally

responsible.
So what exactly is moral responsibility? And in what sense are we responsible? Well, if Harris is morally responsible for the crimes that he committed then he would also have the obligation to accept the punishment and consequences for his actions. Since compatibilists would argue that we cannot completely blame Harris for his actions, they would also say that he is not morally responsible for those actions either. Harris did have an extremely difficult upbringing, he had a learning disability, and speech problems. He experienced all sorts of abuse as he was raped multiple times and kicked and beaten. We must assume that the man experienced post traumatic stress disorder in addition to other mental disabilities during his life. All of these factors could be the best thing to blame for Harris’s actions rather than Harris himself. Mental illness is not something that an individual can control therefore we must consider that the actions that the possible mental illnesses that Harris had could have determined what he would do with his life and how he would behave.
As philosophers, let us also discuss the idea of reactive attitudes. I think that it is important that we consider the idea that although an individual might have determined actions, they may not have determined attitudes. If a person does someone to hurt another person because it was determined, is there not a possibility that the person who did the hurting will feel some type of remorse or regret since they do have control over their thoughts. P.F. Strawson touches on this as he says, “I want to insist on is the very great importance that we attach to the attitudes and intentions towards us of other human beings, and the great extent to which our personal feelings and reactions depend upon, or involve, our beliefs about these attitudes and intentions” (75). He shares the importance of intentions and what it means to react with personal feelings. I think that this is something that could also be debated equally by both sides. One could say that an even if your actions are determined, your feelings and emotions are free will. But I would argue that what goes on in your mind is a reflection of your actions, therefore you cannot control one without the other. Remorse is a good example of this. If you did something without thinking, you might regret what you did, but you could have also done intentionally and also regret it later, as well.
As P.F. Strawson’s concepts can be harder to wrap your head around than Frankfurt's, we must understand that, as compatibilists, we cannot reject the claim that we cannot truly blame Harris for his crime because of his upbringing. P.F. Strawson’s premise for his argument for compatibilism also implies that we should reject the statement that if all of our actions are the inevitable result of causes outside of our control, none of us can truly be blamed for anything. We fail to mention that Robert Harris was one of nine children and each child had similar experiences as him regarding their upbringing. Barbara Harris shared, “. . . All nine children are psychologically crippled as a result of their father, but most have been able to lead useful lives”. This tells us that even though Robert Harris had a hard upbringing, those who also had the same upbringing ended up alright. So can we really blame the upbringing?
While examining cases like Robert Harris’s, many ideas and concepts can be brought to your attention. Depending on what type of philosopher you are will shape your thoughts about who or what is to blame. If you are a determinist then you would say that Harris’s upbringing has already determined his future and there is nothing that will change that about his life. If you are a libertarian free will, you would say that it did not matter what Harris experienced as a child, he had full decisions to act the way that he did later in life. Compatibilists, on the other hand, share that there can be a nice compromise. Looking at Harry Frankfurt’s pessimistic view towards compatibilism, we can also examine how this concept could be considered not realistic. Looking at different philosophical viewpoints, we can better decide what is the best way to understand a situation and make logical decisions.