Time and responsibility

Juan Camilo Espejo-Serna
Universidad de la Sabana

Plan

  1. Film overview
  2. The future
  3. Responsibility

Film overview

Write in chat a one-line summary of the plot of MINORITY REPORT.

(A good one :P).

The film considers several questions with philosophical interest. One is about free will and determination. Another about time

The film assumes view about time in order to make a point about choice.

Is Anderton's choice a good one?

The film assumes view about time in order to make a point about choice.

Is Anderton's choice a good one?

Is Anderton's choice possible?

Main claim: The film defends the view that even if we are determined to do something we 1) are responsible for it and 2) can stop it.

The future

The precogs "see" the future and the police stop it. Is it still the future if it is stopped?

Time

What is time?

The A-series and the B-series (McTaggart)
We will come back to time.
For the moment we just need to bear in mind that there is one metaphysics of time that is assumed by the film.
Watch the scene again and answer: What views of the metaphysics of time are compatible with the film?

Responsibility

Human agency

Things happen in the world; Humans act in the world. What, if any, is the difference?

One view: Humans are not determined by past events.
Everything else is.
Another view: Humans are determined by past events just like everything else.

Which view do you prefer?

Intention

What is the difference between what we will do and what we merely intend to do?

One view: To intend to X is to believe one will X.
Another view: To intend to X is a sui generis mental state.

Responsibility

We can talk about many kinds of responsibility. But whenever I talk about responsibility I will be talking about moral responsibility.

Are you responsible for your future actions?

Are you responsible for your future actions even if you are stopped from doing them?

Main claim: The film defends the view that even if we are determined to do something we 1) are responsible for it and 2) can stop it.
The main claim goes against the principle of alternative possibilities: (PAP) an agent is morally responsible for performing a given act A only if they could have done otherwise.

Do you agree with PAP?

When we are coerced into doing X we are not responsible. (Examples?)

Does this support PAP?

Harry Frankfurt: No! There are cases when someone will do X no matter what and yet we do hold them responsible.
  1. Jones 1 is an unreasonable man; he receives a credible threat and does not attend to it. He goes on to do what he had previously decided. Incidentaly, he does what he was threatened to do. He did X fully because he decided so.
  2. Jones 2 is a reasonable man; he receives a credible threat and does attends to it. He goes on to do what he was threatened to do. He did X fully because he was threatened so.
  3. Jones 3 is a reasonable man; he receives a credible threat and does attends to it. He goes on to do what he had decided to do. He did X fully because he decided so.
  4. Jones 4 is a reasonable man; he receives a credible threat and does attends to it. He goes on to do what he had decided. He did X partly because he decided so, partly because he was threatened.
Frankfurt's point is that even if we couldn't have acted otherwise we might be responsible. We are only free of blame if we only acted so because of force.
Main claim: The film defends the view that even if we are determined to do something we 1) are responsible for it and 2) can stop it.
Main claim: The film defends the view that even if we are determined to do something we 1) are responsible for it and 2) can stop it.

Knowing what we are going to do makes the difference.

What is the difference between the Frankfurt argument and the Minority's report argument?

Next week