2nd Writing Exercise

Superficially, Caruso and Dennett seem to disagree about a lot! But do they really? Explain
the precise nature of their disagreement. (Do they genuinely disagree at all? Or are they
merely talking past each other?)

Dennett and Caruso in Just Deserts appear to disagree quite fundamentally one whether we
as human beings can be held moral responsible and accountable for our actions and
whether we actually have ‘free-will’ in our actions. However in reading their arguments
there is a lot of overlap between what each is positing to the other, finding mutual ground
on several topics. Dennett sets out to argue that determinism and moral responsibility are
compatible; we are responsible for staying responsible, despite not being responsible for
becoming responsible. Essentially, we cannot control the fact that we become autonomous
beings, but thus naturally hold each other morally accountable because we are. While
Caruso, contrarily, argues that we are merely products of factors that are beyond our
control, therefore making us incapable of being morally responsible and thus receiving our
‘just deserts’; we cannot deserve blame and punishment nor praise and reward because we
can never control our actions.

The main point of Dennett’s with which Caruso takes issue, is the concept of retributive
justice; ‘deserving’ punishment, because it is purely backward-looking. However Dennett
too believes that retributivism is a greatly flawed concept. Caruso then disagrees with
Dennett’s assertion that an individual who believes that they have been wronged is justified
in placing blame on other persons; giving ‘just deserts’. However goes on to state that you
are entitled to the blame and criticism you get if you violate the laws or offend common
decency; seemingly agreeing with Dennett. I believe that the two do disagree on this
concept, believing that deserts are not justified and are justified respectively, however do
seem to have a tremendous amount of overlap in their beliefs that associate with these
concepts. There continues to be overlap within their arguments like both agreeing with
Barack Obama that “if you’ve got a [successful] business, you didn’t build that [alone]”.
However the two disagree on why this statement was so threatening to the Republican
party; Dennett believing that we are beings designed to take advantage of the luck we
encounter, while Caruso believes that we cannot control it at all.

Though the debate was framed to be two completely opposing minds arguing about the
nature of free-will and responsibility, through actually breaking down their arguments, it is
clear that they actually agree on a lot of points. The two do fundamentally disagree on
whether humans are autonomous, yet both dismiss, retributivism, libertarian free-will and
the idea of being self-made. Dennett believes ‘just deserts’ are necessary for the functioning
of society and a system without them would be bad for humanity, while Caruso believes
that they inhibit societal progression. Although there is a lot of talking past each other it
does appear as though the two do genuinely disagree on the points of whether we are
deserving of ‘deserts’ and the role that they play within society. Despite this it is shocking
how similar the beliefs of the two are considering they come to polar conclusions.