Moral Responsibility

If I were to stub my toe on the doorstep tomorrow then I would not hold that doorstep morally responsible for my pain, and nor would I hold it responsible for my good fortune if in my moment of pain I were to spot $100 which I would otherwise have not noticed. The doorstep is not a decision-making agent, and no punishment nor reward could have any consequence on its future behaviour. The doorstep will not move aside to prevent me stubbing my toe in the future, and nor will it leap into my path to draw my attention toward some item of worth.

An entity, such as the state, which forces someone to "do good", denies that same someone the opportunity to be a decision-maker and also denies to them, as the laws of the universe deny my doorstep, any responsibility for their behaviour. It is only for our status as decision-makers that we are regarded as responsible for our behaviour, whether our behaviour is right or wrong. Therefore, by substituting the decisions of many individuals for the decisions of a few powerful elites, those individuals are denied their opportunity for moral action.

If it were possible to compel each and every individual to do the right thing, so that noone could be regarded as a decision-maker, then nobody would ever have the opportunity for moral action. The daily interactions of individuals would be like a well-greased machine, flawless, but heartless. Unfortunately, many seem to find this prospect appealing, though they would never express it as I have done above. The thought of being a decision-maker is scary, or so some people seem to treat it as such, perhaps because of the responsibility which it entails.