Are We Responsible for Who We Become

Start talking

Start talking: first response

Two employees ignore the same safety rule. Only one causes an accident. Should you blame them equally?

Take it further

What fact about their knowledge or available choices could change your answer?

Clip A

Watch for: What do the two positions disagree about: JoJo’s actions, his values, or his responsibility?

Original source

The infamous JoJo thought experiment – Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud · TED-Ed · 00:06–02:59 · Source and credit

Clip A quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. Why does the opening distinguish JoJo’s wrongdoing from his responsibility?

His acts are wrong, but the degree of blame remains disputed.His childhood makes the acts morally right for him.His intentions make the consequences irrelevant.

2. What is unusual about the evidence available to the young JoJo?

He sees resistance but chooses to conceal it.He sees praise and obedience without witnessing the underlying fear.He studies rival moral views with his father’s critics.

3. What makes an action attributable to someone on the Deep Self view?

It expresses the person’s central commitments.It produces the outcome that society prefers.Its consequences were completely predictable.

4. Why does the clip contrast JoJo with somebody acting under duress?

The contrast shows that all criminal acts are involuntary.Duress necessarily produces more harmful consequences.External pressure can weaken the link between action and the person’s commitments.

5. What does Susan Wolf add to the assessment?

Whether JoJo inherited political power legally.How the values guiding his actions were formed.Whether the public believes his decisions are wise.

6. Which statement best captures the disagreement in this excerpt?

The thinkers disagree about whether cruelty occurred.Both positions require JoJo to reject his father before being responsible.They disagree about whether acting on one’s own values is sufficient for full responsibility.

Grammar in a minute: Inverted past counterfactuals

Use Had + subject + past participle instead of if + past perfect. The main clause normally uses would, could or might have + past participle.

You say: Suggest one childhood change that might have affected a fictional ruler; avoid claiming certainty.

One possible response

Had the ruler heard directly from those harmed by his policies, he might have questioned the praise he received.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

That may explain the behaviour without excusing it.

Separate a causal explanation from a moral defence.

You say: A colleague says a bully learned aggression at home, so criticism is unfair. Respond with a qualification.

One possible response

That may explain the behaviour without excusing it. I would also ask whether the colleague could recognise the harm and choose a different response.

The question is how much weight we give to…

Identify the disputed factor in an argument.

You say: Two people agree that a ruler acted cruelly but disagree about blame. Clarify their disagreement.

One possible response

The question is how much weight we give to the ruler’s upbringing compared with his later opportunities to reflect and change.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Can a choice be authentically yours if you never had a fair chance to question the values behind it?
Help me start
Separate ownership of a value from a reasonable opportunity to evaluate it.
One possible response
The choice may express who I am, so it is mine in one sense. Full blame seems to require more: some capacity or opportunity to recognise alternatives. Otherwise, authenticity risks rewarding the success of manipulation.
Take it further: Would one encounter with a critic be enough to create that opportunity?
C2 challenge
Defend a threshold for a fair opportunity, then identify a borderline case your threshold struggles with.
Does reducing blame for a cruel person reduce what victims are entitled to demand?
Help me start
Distinguish criticism, protection, acknowledgement and repair.
One possible response
Reduced blame need not mean leaving victims exposed. We can require the harm to stop and support repair while recognising limits on the offender’s agency. However, explaining those limits badly could make victims feel their experience is being minimised.
Take it further: Which demand, if any, depends most directly on the offender’s blameworthiness?
C2 challenge
Make a victim-centred objection to your own position and answer it without equating blame with protection.
Which matters more: never hearing a moral objection, or hearing one and refusing to consider it?
Help me start
Consider knowledge, credibility and the personal cost of listening.
One possible response
Refusing a credible objection normally seems more blameworthy because an alternative was available. Yet merely hearing criticism is not enough: someone taught that every critic is dangerous may lack a realistic basis for trusting it.
Take it further: How could we distinguish sincere mistrust from convenient avoidance?
C2 challenge
Offer an observable indicator, then explain why it would remain imperfect evidence of inner agency.

Clip B

Before this extract, two equally intoxicated drivers make the same reckless choice. One reaches home; the other encounters a child and causes a death. The video calls them A and B. The question is whether a different outcome should change moral blame.

Watch for: Which things can affect praise or blame even when the agent does not control them?

Original source

Moral Luck: Crash Course Philosophy #39 · CrashCourse · 01:39–08:37 · Source and credit

Clip B quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. What does “ought implies can” require in the clip’s argument?

A moral requirement must concern something the person can do.Anything a person can do is morally required.A good outcome proves that the person fulfilled a duty.

2. What does the brake-line example separate?

Intentional harm from accidental physical contact.Public punishment from private forgiveness.Being in a causal chain from deserving blame.

3. Why is a falling coconut treated differently from a person deliberately throwing it?

Only the thrown coconut can cause an injury.The person can act as a moral agent; the coconut cannot.The falling coconut has less predictable effects.

4. What is the point of the unnoticed privacy violation?

An unnoticed action cannot violate someone’s rights.Any harmful result proves deliberate wrongdoing.Wrongdoing need not depend on experienced distress.

5. Which factor exemplifies constitutive luck?

The temperament with which someone tends to respond.Whether a rescue attempt happens to succeed.Whether an emergency occurs nearby.

6. What alternative purpose of praise and blame is considered near the end?

Proving that every result was freely chosen.Encouraging or discouraging behaviour in society.Replacing judgments about conduct with chance alone.

Grammar in a minute: Past modal passives

Use modal + have been + past participle to evaluate an earlier action or expectation. The modal expresses your level of certainty or judgment.

You say: Explain one limit on what could reasonably have been expected of a novice volunteer.

One possible response

The volunteer could not reasonably have been expected to recognise a fault that even the trained staff had missed.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

We need to distinguish between… and…

Keep related judgments conceptually separate.

You say: Two rescuers make equally careful attempts, but only one succeeds. Explain what should be separated.

One possible response

We need to distinguish between the value of the outcome and the quality of the decision. Success matters enormously, but it does not prove greater courage.

If the relevant difference is…, then…

Apply a stated criterion consistently.

You say: A committee praises one successful volunteer and ignores an equally careful volunteer whose attempt failed. Challenge its criterion.

One possible response

If the relevant difference is effort and judgment, then both volunteers deserve recognition. If we are celebrating a result, the committee should say so explicitly.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Should equally reckless choices receive equal moral blame when only one causes serious harm?
Help me start
Hold knowledge, risk and intention constant before considering the result.
One possible response
I would initially blame the reckless choices equally because neither person controlled the final difference. The person who caused harm may still owe different forms of repair. That separates deserved criticism from responsibilities created by an actual injury.
Take it further: Could that separation seem evasive to the injured person?
C2 challenge
Give the strongest outcome-sensitive objection, then distinguish moral blame, compensation and punishment.
Is it fair to praise someone mainly because doing so encourages other people?
Help me start
Contrast what the person deserves with the benefits of public recognition.
One possible response
Public praise can legitimately encourage helpful conduct, but it becomes misleading if success is treated as evidence of uniquely admirable character. I would explain the conduct being recognised and acknowledge comparable attempts that were less fortunate.
Take it further: Would your answer change if the praise saved future lives?
C2 challenge
Defend a limit on socially useful praise without assuming that desert is its only possible purpose.
Can recognising moral luck make people more responsible rather than less?
Help me start
Consider prevention, humility and the risk of fatalism.
One possible response
Recognising luck can encourage better safeguards and less self-righteous judgment. It need not erase agency: I can acknowledge advantages while taking responsibility for the choices I can influence. The danger is using context as a permanent excuse to avoid change.
Take it further: What would a responsibility policy built on that distinction actually ask people to do?
C2 challenge
Propose one concrete practice and explain how it avoids both fatalism and unrealistic expectations.

Mastery

Mastery: 6 questions

Original cases. Choose, then explain one answer aloud.

1. A trainee follows a harmful practice taught as normal. A supervisor knows credible alternatives but refuses them. What most clearly distinguishes their responsibility?

The supervisor’s greater opportunity to recognise and choose another course.The trainee’s conduct belongs to a different moral category solely because of age.Their responsibility must be identical because the harm is identical.

2. Two careful rescuers make equally reasonable attempts. A sudden current defeats one. Which assessment best separates result from agency?

Only the successful rescuer had a morally good intention.Their efforts can merit similar praise although the outcomes differ.Neither can deserve praise because rescue always involves uncertainty.

3. A committee says, “Her upbringing explains her prejudice, therefore nobody may criticise her conduct.” What step is missing?

Proof that her conduct caused the largest measurable harm.Evidence that she has never acted generously in another context.An assessment of her present understanding and opportunities to act differently.

4. A loose roof tile injures a visitor. No person could reasonably have detected the fault. Which claim is strongest?

The tile is causally involved without being a moral agent.The visitor’s injury proves somebody must deserve blame.No causal explanation is possible unless someone is responsible.

5. A leader publicly rewards only successful rescue attempts to inspire volunteers. What should critics examine first?

Whether inspiration makes the unsuccessful rescuers less courageous.Whether the policy’s social benefits justify unequal recognition of comparable conduct.Whether successful rescuers were completely free of luck.

6. A councillor secretly shares a resident’s private letter. No one reports distress. Which conclusion is warranted?

The absence of distress establishes that the act was harmless in every sense.The councillor’s motives no longer matter because privacy is involved.Lack of felt distress does not by itself settle whether the sharing was wrong.

Grammar in a minute: Concession without surrender

Use although + a finite clause to acknowledge a relevant fact while maintaining a qualified conclusion. Despite instead takes a noun phrase or an -ing form.

You say: Acknowledge an unfair start while preserving one possible ground for later responsibility.

One possible response

Although the manager had learned aggressive habits early, she later received clear feedback and practical support, which gave her a meaningful opportunity to change.

The responsibility panel

Integrated spoken task: decide and revise

A fictional expedition panel must assess two team leaders who ignored a known storm warning. One group returned safely; the other needed rescue. The panel can issue moral criticism, require training and assign repair duties; these are separate decisions.

Negotiate a two-sentence principle, apply it to both leaders, and explain whether different outcomes justify different responses.

Open only your own role. Share its information by speaking.

Agency advocate

Focus on what each leader knew and could reasonably control.

Both initially had the same forecast and equipment. One leader grew up in a training culture that glorified risk.

Consequences advocate

Represent the rescued group’s interests and future safety.

The injured participants want their experience acknowledged. They would accept training and practical repair without demanding identical public condemnation.

State an initial decision and its strongest reason.
Hear the other role, ask a challenging question and answer an objection.
Receive the new information, then explain a revised or deliberately retained decision.

New information: revise your decision

A reliable log shows that the leader whose group returned safely received a further explicit warning and deliberately concealed it from the group.

Does the new information change blame, required repair, or both? State precisely which comparison changes.

A strong response

Distinguishes wrongdoing, blame and repair using ideas from both clips.
Answers the strongest objection from the other role.
Revises a judgment by naming a change in knowledge or control.

Initially, I would criticise both leaders for the same reckless decision while assigning additional repair duties where actual injuries occurred. Their different outcomes alone would not prove different character. The new warning changes that assessment: the uninjured group’s leader knowingly concealed relevant information, so there is now a difference in informed choice, not merely luck. His earlier training may explain his attitude without settling the excuse. I would increase the criticism of that concealment, require training for both leaders, and ensure the injured group receives practical support.

Spoken exit

Your spoken exit

In thirty seconds, name one fact that explains an action and a different fact that could change blameworthiness.

One possible response

A harsh upbringing might explain a person’s habits. A later, credible warning could change blameworthiness because it affects what the person knew and could choose.

Your takeaway

One-minute takeaway

Choose one answer. Then explain your choice in one sentence aloud.

Are We Responsible for Who We Become?

Start talking

Clip A

Useful English

Clip B

Useful English

Mastery

The responsibility panel

Spoken exit

Your takeaway

Lesson aims

Practice audio