Not Guilty: A Defence of the Bottom DogBlatchford, Robert
Philosophy
Not Guilty: A Defence of the Bottom Dog
Blatchford, Robert
Criminals; Free will and determinism
How does he know that whisky is dangerous? He has learnt it--from his
environment.
"But he _could_ have taken another glass if he wished."
But he could not wish to take another, because there was something he
wished more strongly--to be safe.
And why did he want to be safe? Because he had learnt--from his
environment--that it was unhealthy, unprofitable, and shameful to get
drunk. Because he had learnt--from his environment--that it is easier to
avoid forming a bad habit than to break a bad habit when formed. Because
he valued the good opinion of his neighbours, and also his position and
prospects.
These feelings and this knowledge ruled his will, and caused him to
refuse the second glass.
But there was no sense of danger, no well-learned lesson of risk to
check his will to smoke another cigarette. Heredity and environment did
not warn him against that. So, to please his friend, and himself, he
accepted.
Now suppose Smith asks Williams to have another glass. Williams takes
it, takes several, finally goes home--as he often goes home. Why?
Largely because drinking is a habit with him. And not only does the mind
instinctively repeat an action, but, in the case of drink, a physical
craving is set up, and the brain is weakened.
It is easier to refuse the first glass than the second; easier to refuse
the second than the third; and it is very much harder for a man to keep
sober who has frequently got drunk.
So, when poor Williams has to make his choice, he has habit against him,
he has a physical craving against him, and he has a weakened brain to
think with.
"But Williams could have refused the first glass."
No. Because in his case the desire to drink, or to please a friend,
was stronger than his fear of the danger. Or he may not have been so
conscious of the danger as Robinson was. He may not have been so well
taught, or he may not have been so sensible, or he may not have been
so cautious. So that his heredity and environment, his temperament and
training, led him to take the drink, as surely as Robinson's heredity
and environment led him to refuse it.
And now, it is my turn to ask a question. If the will is "free,"
if conscience is a sure guide, how is it that the free will and the
conscience of Robinson caused him to keep sober, while the free will and
the conscience of Williams caused him to get drunk?
Robinson's will was curbed by certain feelings which failed to curb
the will of Williams. Because in the case of Williams the feelings were
stronger on the other side.
It was the nature and the training of Robinson which made him refuse the
second glass, and it was the nature and the training of Williams which
made him drink the second glass.
WHAT HAD FREE WILL TO DO WITH IT?
We are told that _every_ man has a free will, and a conscience.
Now, if Williams had been Robinson, that is to say if his heredity and
his environment had been exactly like Robinson's, he would have done
exactly as Robinson did.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account