The infamous JoJo thought experiment – Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud (YouTube Video Transcript)

(00:00:00) Your YouTube transcript will appear here (00:00:07) Jo the First is a ruthless dictator who rules his country with an iron fist. (00:00:14) Whenever he wants something, everyone hurries to appease him. (00:00:17) And since complainers are permanently banished, (00:00:20) Jo’s terrified servants treat his every whim as a wise and noble decision. (00:00:26) To most onlookers, his rule appears cruel and unjust. (00:00:30) But his beloved son JoJo doesn’t see any issues. (00:00:34) This life is all JoJo's ever known, (00:00:38) and he never witnesses any fear from Jo’s subjects or violence against them. (00:00:44) All JoJo sees is his father’s strength, and his subjects’ obedience and praise. (00:00:51) After spending his entire childhood in the castle, (00:00:54) JoJo grows up to inherit his father’s role and his style of rule. (00:01:00) And just as with Jo the First, it’s clear that JoJo’s actions are wrong. (00:01:05) But his case raises a question about morality (00:01:08) that can also shed light on less extreme cases: (00:01:12) given JoJo’s unusual upbringing, (00:01:15) does he bear full moral responsibility for his actions? (00:01:20) Philosophers Gary Watson and Harry Frankfurt would say yes. (00:01:25) According to their Deep Self View, (00:01:28) people are morally responsible for actions that stem from their true self, (00:01:33) meaning actions that reflect their deepest values and commitments. (00:01:37) They believe people are less morally responsible (00:01:41) for actions performed under the influence of external forces, (00:01:45) such as committing a crime under duress or while intoxicated. (00:01:50) But JoJo has no such excuse. (00:01:53) His actions are the product of his values, and as such, (00:01:58) Deep Self theorists would argue that he’s responsible for them. (00:02:03) But what if JoJo’s values have been compromised? (00:02:07) JoJo might be a monster, but he was raised in a very atypical environment. (00:02:12) Is he really just as responsible for his crimes (00:02:15) as someone who had a normal childhood and then became a cruel dictator? (00:02:20) And if JoJo isn’t to blame for who he is, (00:02:24) how can we blame him for what he does? (00:02:27) This is the argument of philosopher Susan Wolf, (00:02:30) who invented JoJo’s case. (00:02:33) Wolf believes that even though JoJo’s actions do reflect his deep self, (00:02:39) when determining moral responsibility, (00:02:42) we also need to consider how someone’s deep self came to be. (00:02:47) And in JoJo's situation, (00:02:49) Wolf believes that even if JoJo is acting on his own values, (00:02:54) his upbringing makes him less responsible for his cruelty. (00:02:59) Wolf’s logic seems pretty reasonable in JoJo’s case. (00:03:03) But if everyone’s deepest values are shaped by their upbringing, (00:03:08) does that mean nobody is responsible for their actions? (00:03:12) This is the attitude held by incompatibilists. (00:03:16) These philosophers believe that if everything is predetermined (00:03:20) by factors like our environment or biology, (00:03:24) then no one is truly morally responsible for anything. (00:03:28) By contrast, compatibilist philosophers (00:03:31) argue that even if our decisions are the inevitable result of past events, (00:03:36) we can still be held responsible for them. (00:03:40) The debate between these factions has been raging for centuries, (00:03:44) but Wolf created JoJo’s case to focus on a different question. (00:03:49) Unlike most people, (00:03:51) JoJo had no meaningful opportunity to learn right from wrong. (00:03:56) And since he continues to be cruel even as an adult, (00:03:59) it would seem JoJo also lacks the capacity to self-reflect and change his values. (00:04:06) To Wolf, this indicates that JoJo lacks basic moral competence. (00:04:12) If he doesn’t know right from wrong and can no longer learn the difference, (00:04:16) surely it's misplaced to fully blame him for his actions. (00:04:21) But this argument raises another important question: (00:04:25) even with this horrible upbringing, (00:04:28) was JoJo’s moral incompetence truly inevitable? (00:04:33) Let’s imagine JoJo had a sister who was raised in the same environment (00:04:38) but developed different values. (00:04:40) If JoJa rejected their father’s tyranny, (00:04:44) this suggests that JoJo could have done the same— (00:04:48) an outcome that seemingly increases his moral responsibility. (00:04:54) Similarly, what if a rogue court member tried to teach young JoJo (00:04:59) about justice and morality, (00:05:02) but he still chose tyranny? (00:05:05) Just as Wolf argues, (00:05:07) it seems like the more chances JoJo has to develop moral competence, (00:05:12) the less we can excuse his actions. (00:05:15) Ultimately, it's up to you to decide. (00:05:19) How should we determine moral responsibility? (00:05:24) And is JoJo’s tyrannical nature truly inevitable— (00:05:28) or can our understanding of right and wrong transcend our upbringing?