As early as 625 BC, the Roman Empire demonstrated the idea of freedom, where men said, “We are free to govern ourselves under laws that we give ourselves.” Many people today trust that they are making their own decisions similar to these Roman men. In a world where people chase after freedom, people are chasing to gain more sense of control and security. Yet with the knowledge that most events in our world have a cause and is thus an effect of that cause, who is to say human actions are not also as such? Some argue that our choices are a product of predetermined factors and our sense of freedom is nothing more than a feeling. People ponder the possibility that humans might not have as much control as many would like to believe. Hence, the question arises, “If our actions are a consequence of our capacities and preferences, and if those things are, in turn, a result of our genetic inheritance and the external world in which we happen to find ourselves, are we ultimately responsible for our choices?” Through my research and understanding of this question, I find myself on a middle ground that concludes even if it is true that humans do not have complete free will, we do have choice and we are responsible for those choices. 

In order to elaborate on this conclusion, the question itself must be tackled. What does it mean to be “responsible” for something? How do genetics and the external world affect our capacities and preferences? What is a choice? As an illustration, when I say I “chose” to set my alarm at 6:40 AM, it is a choice because I knew I had other times I could choose to set, yet I decided to select that specific time out of all other possibilities. This action may be influenced by external and internal factors, for instance, it is true that most people wake up in the morning, so there is a high chance for a student like me to follow that norm and set an alarm in the morning rather than afternoon, but ultimately the decision to set an alarm at that time was still my own. Subsequently, the definition of responsible I place as most fit for this context is, “being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.” To be responsible for a choice suggests that an agent – a being propelled by a mind – was ultimately involved in initiating their choices and causing an action or event. Not only that, the agent’s responsibility could also extend to any immediate consequences from that choice they made. The more control an agent has over a choice, the more likely it is to take responsibility for it. In the following paragraph, I will explore Anthony Blas Yepez who was convicted of second-degree murder; the immediate consequence of his violent actions was the death of his girlfriend’s step-grandfather, George Ortiz. However, what made this case and conviction tricky was Yepez’s genetics. 

In the world of genetics, DNA has long been discovered to be the genetic material of living things. A certain gene within an organism’s DNA may be considered “responsible” for a certain phenotype; genes are inheritable and gene expression is critical to the traits the organism will express. For instance, the geneticist Hans Brunner discovered a mutation in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene. This gene encodes an enzyme (monoamine oxidase A) that is responsible for breaking down neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin, all of which help humans maintain emotional stability. Brunner discovered that within a large Maori family that had a generational history of violence, nearly all of them shared a point mutation in the MAOA gene. According to the National Library of Medicine, “the low activity form of the MAOA gene has been linked to increased levels of aggression and violence.” This impairment to anger regulation from the mutation would inevitably impact the capacities and preferences of a person. One may behave more recklessly based on their ill temper and make choices that they would not have made without the mutation. It is a fact that unless one undergoes gene therapy, a human’s genome cannot be altered at command. If criminals claim their actions were based on this gene mutation, something that is not under their control, should they still be held accountable for their actions? Yepez was a murderer in New Mexico who tested to have the MAOA gene mutation. According to Newsweek, “On October 29, 2012, Yepez attacked his girlfriend's step-grandfather George Ortiz after a drunken argument and strangled the 75-year-old man to death before setting him on fire.” Yepez wanted to use the details regarding this MAOA gene, which many call the “warrior” gene, to appeal his murder conviction, claiming the gene variant caused him to black out when he was raging and he only regained consciousness when the man was already dead. This appeal was rejected by the judge, but this testimony can still be analyzed as an example. When all said is done, there is still controversy behind the causal direction of this MAOA gene, yet if a variant like what Yepez claimed really was to correlate with violence in crimes, there are reasons as to why people like Yepez could have avoided killing. When it comes to increased levels of aggression, there are multiple outlets a person can use to direct their anger. Violence is one way, communication through words is another. Being born with a gene variant is not under the control of an individual, nor is the natural shift in emotions, but one thing an individual can learn to do is manage how they react. Since we are often capable of choosing how we react, actions that are promoted by genetics clearly are not the only action possible. The choices we make are our own in spite of genetic inheritance, therefore, we cannot avoid being responsible for our choices. 

Lastly, one idea that challenges how much responsibility an agent has over their choices is hard determinism. American Psychological Association defines hard determinism as, “the doctrine that human actions and choices are causally determined by forces and influences over which a person exercises no meaningful control.” If we look at the times people chase after freedom, a common theme is the pursuit of having more control over oneself, such as freedom from the constraints of society or freedom to be who you were meant to be. Hard determinism greatly contrasts libertarianism. Libertian free will follows the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which states, “a person is morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise.” That being said, how often are we truly able to choose otherwise? Under deterministic ideas, how could we be responsible for our choices if we have no meaningful control over our choices? If all was predetermined, perhaps there was no “otherwise” from the very beginning. It is challenging to argue for what is the truth because in the lives we live, we will never know the result of what would happen if we had chosen to do “otherwise.” Such as, someone could decide to quit their hobby with the options of either continuing or quitting, then if they were interested in it again later, they can pick the hobby back up, but one would never know what would have occurred if they had never quit in the first place. That’s why I think compatibilism or soft determinism, which somewhat compromises between free will and hard determinism, is able to highlight how we are responsible for our choices. The belief agrees that the universe operates with law-like order and the past determines the future, but people can still call an action “free” when the determination comes from within oneself. Having a choice and having control comes hand in hand. If someone were implored to make a choice with very little internal control, such as not doing what they want because their identity is threatened by the law, then I wouldn’t say they are totally responsible for their choice since they felt there was no other option. And yet, even if their actions were limited due to societal restraints and fear of severe consequences, I would still say they had a choice and have some responsibility. Although we may not be completely responsible for actions that are not under our control, as humans we do have moral responsibility for our actions if the determination for those acts were genuinely self-determined.

Roman men claimed they had control over rules and made choices on what laws they gave themselves, thus those Roman individuals would be held accountable for how they chose to self-govern. In a game of chess, the result of who is able to checkmate and win the game might be influenced by genetic inheritance and the external world, yet there is a reason we still celebrate when we win a game. The choices one makes during a game are ultimately decided by the player. Guided by their own thought processes, players are responsible for the steps they choose to take on the patterned square board, whether the step brings them closer to winning or not. A player’s capacities are limited in how each piece is allowed to move, which pieces are left on the board, and sometimes time restraints, yet the person can still choose at what stage they want to move which piece, as well as where to move a piece. Furthermore, over time a player may also gain preferences for what strategies to use, which type of piece is most to their liking and more. Various things are bound to influence how a person plays, as well as how a person makes a choice, even so, players hold responsibility for the choices they made in between and until the end of the game. To sum it up, we are ultimately responsible for our choices.