The case of Robert Alton Harris, a convicted murderer who was executed in 1992 for his crimes, raises profound questions about free will and moral responsibility. In this essay, I will argue that Harris did not exercise free agency when committing the crimes, that he could not have done otherwise, and that he is morally responsible for his actions despite his background. Moreover, I will show how this scenario can be used to shed light on the possibility of free will and moral responsibility in a deterministic universe.
First, let us consider the facts of the case. Harris was a career criminal who had been in and out of prison since the age of 14. On July 5, 1978, he and his accomplice kidnapped two teenage boys, Michael Baker and John Mayeski, from a parking lot where they stopped to eat after getting food. Robert
…show more content…
Did Harris exercise free agency when committing the crimes? Could he have done otherwise? According to incompatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are incompatible, the answer is no. If determinism is true, then every event, including human actions, is causally determined by antecedent conditions. Harris's actions, therefore, were the necessary effects of his prior circumstances and could not have been otherwise. This is supported by van Inwagen's Consequence Argument, which states that if determinism is true, then no one has free will, since everything that happens is the inevitable consequence of the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe. In other words, his environment, and conditions that he grew up in and experienced predetermined his actions later on. Since his birth, he faced great troubles such as physical abuse, neglection, and little to no parental guidance. His father was a drunk who beat and sexually assaulted his children, and his mother vented her anger onto him. All nine children were psychologically damaged, and Robert never had a chance to