Are We Responsible for Our Actions?

We have a choice about how we take what happens to us in our life and whether
or not we allow it to turn us. We can become consumed by hate and darkness, or we're
able to regain our humanity somehow, or come to terms with things and learn
something about ourselves. This quote by Angelia Jolie perfectly depicts the idea that
we, as human beings, have the ability to make our own decisions regardless of the
circumstances we may find ourselves in. Still, there are some who oppose this idea and
claim that humans cannot be held responsible for their actions because of the
circumstances they are in, even in cases of murder. It was, perhaps, best presented by
a Nazi during World War II:
(a) Everything I do is a result of my circumstances.
(b) I am not responsible for my circumstances.
(c) Therefore, I am not responsible for what I do.
An argument in this form is considered a deductive argument. The goal is to prove to
the reader that the argument is valid and that the conclusion is correct. While the
argument seems valid at first glance, it takes only the slightest bit of scrutiny to see that
the fallacies in this argument lie within both of the presented premises, and as such the
argument fails to prove its conclusion. Furthermore, this argument can not be used to
excuse acts of mass murder, especially in the case of the Nazis horrific crimes during
World War II.

The first premise of the argument is the idea that every persons actions are a
result of their circumstances. There are a number of problems with this statement, the
first being that it assumes nothing is internal. One has to look no further than his or her
own mind to see that there is a problem with this claim. We, as human beings, have the
ability to think and reason internally, without any external coercion or interference from
our circumstances. Surely no one can say that these thoughts do not have an impact on
our actions and behavior. These thought processes eventually lead to internal
decisions, which are another factor of our behavior that is not external. However, those
who believe that our actions are a result of our circumstances might make an opposing
argument relating to the idea of free will, specifically whether or not we truly have it.
Determinists would claim that we do not, and as such our internal thought processes
and decisions are caused by our circumstances, and that even our circumstances are
predetermined in some way. The discussion of whether or not free will exists is far to
difficult for one person to answer. The question that is important here is this: does it
matter whether or not we have free will? In short, no - because even if one could prove
that we do not have free will and we are not responsible for our actions, society as a
whole would never listen to such an argument. If no one could be held responsible for
their actions then our culture would fall into a state of utter chaos and despair because
people would no longer have any motivation to follow the standards that have been set
in place. Simply put, it does not matter if we have free will or not, because regardless of
the answer people will continue on with the assumption that we do.

The second problem with this premise is this: if one is not responsible for his or
her own acts, then who does responsibility fall to? It is a rule of nature that every action
must have a cause, and so every action must also have something or someone that is
responsible for it. So to the Nazi who presented the argument I ask this question: if you
are not responsible for your actions, who is? Of course there is no way for him to
answer that question, though one can imagine that he might attempt to answer by
talking about determinism or the existence of a god. The correct answer, of course, is
that he is responsible for his actions whether he believes it or not. Even if it is true that
he has no responsibility for the circumstances he is in, that does not mean that he has
no responsibility for his actions.
The second premise of the argument is just as flawed as the first. The Nazi
claims I am not responsible for my circumstances. The first issue here is this: while we
might not be responsible for our circumstances, we are responsible for putting ourselves
into our circumstances. For example, if someone struggling with alcoholism is asked to
go to a bar he is obviously not responsible for the existence of the bar. However, he is
responsible for his circumstances if he agrees to go to the bar, and therefore is
responsible for his actions if he decides to partake in recreational drinking. One could
apply similar logic to the actions of those under Hitlers control during World War II.
While German citizens were not responsible for Hitlers actions and for the regime that
Hitler created, people who decided to join his cause and commit acts of mass murder

are responsible for putting themselves in those circumstances and therefore are
responsible for what they did.
The second premise also assumes that our internal processes do not have any
affects on the external world around us when, in fact, quite the contrary is true.
Newtons third law of motion states that every action has an equal and opposite
reaction. The same is true about the way we interact with our environment. We affect
the world around us just as much as it affects us. This also applies to the way we
interact with people around us. We affect our coworkers, peers, and family just as much
as they affect us. More so, the second premise has a built in contradiction. It claims that
nobody has control over the circumstances that they are in, and yet some person or
some group of people must have created those circumstances. While we may not
always have the ability to completely control our circumstances, we undoubtedly have
the ability to influence them, and if you can influence something then you are at least
partially responsible for it.
Being a Nazi during World War II, the individual who presented this argument
was offering it as an explanation for the actions of himself and the rest of the Nazi party,
as well as a reason that they should not and cannot be held responsible for the acts of
mass murder they committed. The question that now remains is; does this argument
excuse the crimes of these people? Any rational person can see the answer is no. The
horrific crimes that were committed during that time absolutely cannot be excused by a

philosophical argument about free will. Free will or no, the genocide committed during
the holocaust is inexcusable.
In essence, this philosophical argument is more of a gimmick than it is anything
else. While it might sound incredibly clever, it is clear upon further examination that the
premises are simply not true. Logical fallacies having to do with our internal thought
processes, our free will, and our responsibility show that the logic is flawed and that the
conclusion does not hold up. Furthermore, the idea that this could be used as a way to
excuse any crime, much less the mass murder of millions of innocent people, is an
outrageous thing to even suggest. The atrocities committed during that time are some of
the blackest parts of human history. As the historian Stephen Ambrose said, The
Holocaust was the most evil crime ever committed.

Bibliography

Creighton, Sam. Angelina Takes Professor to Task for Saying Myth of Santa Causes
Harms. Mail Online. N.p., 6 June 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2014.
Program Quotes. Shaoh Yellow Candle: Holocaust Remembrance Program. N.p., n.d.
Web. 15 Dec. 2014.