In a recent blog post in Scientific American the author, Larry Geenemeier, suggests that the accused Colorado Shooter was lacking cognitive control and points specifically to one’s cognitive ability in order to try to make sense of the actions in Aurora, Colorado and other recent events by similarly profiled assailants. Though I agree that we should try to understand the psychological states of these individuals, I think it’s wrong to assume that shooters like the accused James Holmes were lacking cognitive control when they decided to act. The purpose of this post will be to try to motivate the claim that James Holmes is (likely) morally responsible for his actions, and, because of that, we can properly blame him for what he did (assuming he is guilty, which seems obvious at this point). In order to motivate such a claim I’ll argue that Holmes, and others like him, have the cognitive capacity of self-reflection and this is where we ought to ground ascriptions of moral responsibility.
What do I mean by moral responsibility? Well, as I mentioned in the comments thread in an earlier post (see post and comments here), I take moral responsibility to be different from legal and causal responsibility. But, for the sake of brevity, rather than recapitulate the differences between the three once again I’ll offer only what I take moral responsibility to be, so that we can move quickly to the discussion of the present case (feel free to re-visit the past discussion where more (not all) of the details are hashed out)
Judgements of moral responsibility are different from judging an act to be morally right or wrong, the latter judgements are cashed out as deontic judgements. Judgements of moral responsibility are, in essence, judgements aiming to gauge whether the accused perpetrator is morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for the act in question, assuming that the perpetrator is causally responsible; that he_in fact_ committed the act . This is an important distinction because it is possible for someone to be causally responsible for an act but not be morally responsible. There are mitigating factors that could play a role in mitigating moral responsibility in the face of being causally responsible. Consider the case of Joe.
Joe walks into his office. Unbeknownst to him, there is a bomb device strapped to his chair and it will detonate a bomb in another city if he sits on his chair. (There were no warning signs that could have led Joe to think there was a bomb connected to his chair and Joe sits on his chair to do his work every morning). So, Joe sits on his chair, BOOM, a bomb goes off in Chicago killing everyone in the city. Joe is causally responsible for killing millions of people. Am I justified in blaming Joe for killing millions of people? I don’t think so. Hopefully, this helps to differentiate the difference between causal responsibility and moral responsibility, if one has any questions regarding this we can discuss it further in the comments. For now, let’s discuss the case of James Holmes and some of the other similar cases mentioned in the Scientific American post.
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND JAMES HOLMES
In the above mentioned post, Larry suggested that the James Holmes case was “eerily similar” to the case from Blacksburg, Virginia in 2007 when 32 people were shot dead and 17 lay injured on the Virginia Tech campus. In both cases, the accused shooters “matched a particular profile—a disgruntled loner with grievances against societal institutions and who displayed an abhorrent inability or unwillingness to exercise control over violent impulses.” But, is this an accurate depiction of what was going on for the shooters, particularly Holmes? I don’t think that it is, and, seeing the case this way mitigates the shooters moral responsibility, this isn’t why I disagree with the assessment, however, it is a consequence of seeing the shooters in this light. It also seems that others want to point to a seemingly obvious “mental illness” for the cause of the shooters decision to act in that manner (see comment thread on this CBC news report). But again, I don’t think such claims are warranted. And if they are, then it seems we all act on impulses, which seems quite unintuitive to me. Let me explain.
Impulse is usually defined as (1)”the influence of a particular feeling, mental state, etc.” or, (2)” (the)sudden, involuntary inclination prompting to action”. If either of these is right, then it seems that we all act on impulse (especially when considering the former definition). Because of this, I think that the definition need be a bit more nuanced to get to at what we mean by impulse, or acting on impulse. So, maybe the lack of reflection coupled with the above definition (1) will suffice. That seems a bit more plausible. But, if we think about Holmes, his actions do not seem impulsive at all, whether considering our nuanced definition (1) or (2). He planned out the attack intricately, he prepared for months! These facts seem to point in the opposite direction of impulsive to contemplative. Also, it seems that Holmes was aware of social norms and had an ability to abide by them prior to this action, this also seems to be a point against mitigating his moral responsibility. Now, assuming he had control (that no-one implanted a device in his brain that made him do it) coupled with the knowledge he had of his actions (what his actions could produce, i.e, death), then it seems that he should be held morally responsible.
Now, for many unfamiliar with the free will and moral responsibility literature this point might come off as obvious, but, many within the philosophical community would disagree with my conclusion. For instance, many think that one must see their actions as morally wrong in order to be justly blamed for the act. This is why we may only blame children as a tool to teach them but that we don’t ACTUALLY hold them morally responsible for their actions because they honestly don’t know how some actions would/could affect others and why it’s wrong. Similarly, Holmes could have seen his action as a needed one for whatever reasons he had (like the child), but, as long as those reasons were genuinely his at the time of the shooting and as long as those reasons were grounded in what Holmes thought was right then we lose our ability to hold him morally responsible. This conclusion seems unintuitive, and, when digging deeper to try to understand it, it seems quite wrong. But, that isn’t enough to claim that the conclusion is_in fact_ wrong. Consider this brief example.
One person kills 3 to save 10. Insert your favorite trolley case here _____. Do we blame the person who decides to kill 3 instead of 10 (assuming one must choose as one has to in trolley cases)? Usually not. This provides some support to the conclusion that Holmes might not be morally responsible. If he saw the case in his own deranged way as some sort of trolley like case then maybe he’s not. With that said, it will take a lot of convincing to argue that he in fact saw the case in this way. And, even if he did, I’m skeptical that alone mitigates his moral responsibility, but, I have not provided much of an argument for why he would be morally responsible if in fact he saw the situation as many see the trolley cases above. This is why many within the philosophical community would refrain from holding him morally responsible (if in fact Holmes didn’t think his actions were wrong).
SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have offered some reasons to deny the claims made in the Scientific American post that James Holmes was in fact acting on a violent impulse and that he lacked cognitive control when he acted. The contemplative nature of the crime suggests that Holmes was guided by reason. And, even if he was guided by an initial impulse, it seems that Holmes had the reflective capacity to be held morally responsible, assuming he met the other requirements.
With that said, if Holmes thought that what he was doing was genuinely the “right thing to do” then it seems that those (like myself) that want to hold him morally responsible for his actions will be hard-pressed if they want to hold on to the ability to mitigate moral responsibility in the trolley cases. At the end of the day, I think we might be able to get around such conundrums, though I’ll save those musings for another post.
A Philosopher's Take 
John Woodard: Crazy Like A Fox
July 25, 2012
I am just going to toss in my 2 cents. This is accepting that Holmes is the shooter.
Just saying that establishes his causal responsibility.
His deception indicates that he knew he was acting outside accepted behavior. To me, that establishes his legal responsibility.
I believe there is not yet enough information to conclude moral responsibility. I believe mental illness is an issue.
That being said, the specific mental illness must be determined before one can know the extent of mitigation involved. All mental illnesses are impairing. Some are more impairing than others.
There must be an intervening event or series of events that turned a brilliant man dedicated to healing into a stone cold and apparently deluded killer. What was that event? What was the effect on his psyche?
Although “common sense” would indicate that “impulse” is a nonissue due to the evidence of extensive planning, psychology indicates that certain illnesses can create recurring triggers resulting in a series of common “impulses.” Consider Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I would imagine that, in the end, Holmes will be seen as morally responsible as well. That responsibility will probably be mitigated, but not mitigated away.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 25, 2012
John, I agree with your take on his causal and legal responsibility. I also agree that the jury is out with regards to his moral responsibility, hence my take which is similar to your conclusion that he’s “likely, morally responsible”. Now with regards to mental illness we might also be in agreement but let me flush out a few details.
Mental illness does not mitigate one’s moral responsibility, prima facie. It all depends on which mental illness (you also rightfully alluded to this). Now, you mentioned PTSD. PTSD, unless coupled with another disorder, is not usually one that I consider to affect one’s moral culpability. After all, don’t we all get a series of impulses? I’m not trying to be insensitive to those with PTSD, I have a few friends who have it, but, I think those friends would be morally responsible because they have the ability to control these impulses. They cannot eradicate them, hence the disorder, but they are not FORCED to act on them in a morally abhorrent way. The disorder puts them at a disadvantage to think clearly, but, I don’t think it FORCES them to act in any particular way.
Disorders like schizophrenia and psychosis are different. These disorders affect one’s epistemic standing. If you see a green man and he’s holding a gun to your mom’s head telling you to do ______, then you’re likely not morally responsible for ______. After all, you have no control over the hallucination. You would still be legally and causally responsible, but you would fail to meet the epistemic requirement to justly hold one morally responsible, or so I think. If Holmes in fact had a mental illness that included some sort of hallucination that played a large role in him deciding to act then I would be reluctant to hold him morally responsible. But, if he had anxiety, depression, PTSD, or many disorders that do not involve a distortion of physical objects and their abilities to do harm to yourself or others then I’m not so sure that those disorders are the kinds of disorders that can completely mitigate one’s moral responsibility.
Thanks again for your two cents, John.
LikeLike
jason
July 29, 2012
7/27/12
There are so many factors that come into play, with regards to the number of steps involved in the planning, i.e. ordering the weapons, date site postings of visiting in jail, booby trapping his apt, faking a call and leaving the fire exit and returning to perform the act, and the list certainly goes on. There were or had to be multiple points in the months leading up to the event that he could have stopped, but didn’t. Each step was a preparation for a final result, which he knew or had to of known all along, right from step 1, which if he knew or imagined what the final result would be makes him morally and cognitively responsible.
If he woke up one morning, the first morning that the impulse to start purchasing the weapons to perform the final act and realized it would be wrong and in fact was wrong and did not seek help in stopping himself anyone knowing this would have got him psychiatric help real quick! Even he must have been aware of this simple fact, he could have took a step to stop at each phase of the planning. Like after purchasing all the ammunition, he knew why he purchased it. It wasn’t like he was an avid hunter prior to that point, he must have known he knew he needed the ammunition to perform the act, he didn’t by blanks he knew what he was doing and how to do it. I don’t see how someone could remain in an hallucinatory state for so many steps.
I mean it isn’t like one day he opens the mail and it’s a box full of ammo, and he is trying to figure out who ordered it and why, if he was delusional he would not be able to understand the end result, he had to have known he ordered it for the guns that he had sitting there, the guns were there for the act.
If he let out the plan from the start to anyone from the start, anyone in their right mind would see that it was crazy and would have done something to stop him, even himself, and since he did not stop himself from the start we would have to agree he was acting crazy and continued to act more crazy each step of the way. This sort of crazy behavior is not a sudden snap, his madness had method. It was not a sudden instant act of craziness. Even if he tries to say Satan or some spirit entered him and took control of him there is no way to prove that it is not what in fact happened, but then again how would he have known that that is what occurred to him, that can only be an objective opinion not subjective. A case like this would leave him wondering how he could have done anything like that, and it certainly was not him who did it, i.e. the him who suddenly is the him just prior to the first causal action of the process.
Even if the person known by professors, friends etc. state that he could not have done something like that, this may be true, and he did in fact begin to act crazy and became crazy he must still be crazy, but does that entail being non cognitively aware of his acts? I don’t think so. If he was totally aware at each stage that would seem to me to be even more crazy than becoming crazy, irrational crazy, not being rational about what he was perpetrating. But there were to many rational decisions involved in the irrational acts.
7/29/12
News report yesterday states that he was seeing a Psych at school, which sheds even more light on what he may have left out of his sessions with the doctor, or did he leave anything out?
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
August 6, 2012
Jason, thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. I agree with your overall sentiments, I only have a few remarks to add.
You say “I don’t see how someone could remain in an hallucinatory state for so many steps.”
Well, with psychosis and other delusional disorders, people think that what they are doing is necessary or further harm will be a result. These cases tend to put lots of pressure on one’s moral culpability. Think about it, if someone really thought they needed to do something because of delusion x, if the delusion is long lasting (I’ve had some 1st hand experience from prior employment with patients having such delusions), then it seems that one could remain in this state and it could affect one’s actions.
Also, you said “even if he tries to say Satan or some spirit entered him and took control of him there is no way to prove that it is not what in fact happened, but then again how would he have known that that is what occurred to him, that can only be an objective opinion not subjective.”
It would be very hard to prove indeed, but, I like to think about cases as if it was provable, just to see if in fact this would change our opinions regarding his moral culpability. With most mental disorders we do take 1st person perspectives into account as well as the doctor’s perspective.
With regards to the information about his psychologist/therapist, I’ll be blogging about that sooner than later.
Thanks again for chiming in, Jay.
LikeLike
Maserati
March 12, 2013
“assuming he is guilty, which seems obvious at this point”
Maybe obvious to you, but I think just the opposite…the media misdirection, suppression of evidence and testimony to exonerate James Holmes, legal malpractice at every turn by his defense team, the court allowing known false hearsay evidence (perjury, at least twice) in a murder hearing? Quite the contrary. It’s obvious to me Holmes was intentionally psychologically torted by the university during the details of the research, driving him to the shrink to establish a quick mental history and withdrawl from the university. He was electronically stalked and set up the whole time to be framed. Am I stating the government did this? I am, and I’ve personally seen the government do something much more immoral by a factor of at least a thousand.
Holmes father’s anti-fraud software, exposing the LIBOR scandal, makes him the biggest whistleblower in the history of mankind. Coincidence? Hardly. The goverment and corporations can’t touch Robert Holmes for discrediting the entire western banking system and costing them billions and billions in fines, he’s too established with too much notariety. I don’t believe the US DOJ has put anyone in jail yet for the trillion dollars in theft. Motive: A lifetime of embarassment and remorse to Holmes father, and a warning to his professional colleagues never to do it again. Also good PR for gun regulations,and keep the UCD fellow researchers silent.
Realize there are only two options here..the “official” story, of a neuroscience geek with no motive whatsoever, immediately developing the skills of an EOD expert (apartment) and a trained combat mercenary (theater). If that isn’t ludicous enough, he’s found behind the theater in a state so drugged he has no emotional response (testimony) and can barely stand up. The police run no toxicology, but admit his pupils were “huge” in the police report? Eyewitness Corbin Dates gave interviews (later edited) giving the description of the man who opened the exit door and motioned someone that way. It was clearly not James Holmes. Dates wasn’t allowed to testify, as the Defense attorneys put no defense on and just made Holmes look guilty. An Aurora detective testified for Dates (hearsay), and lied in contradiction to Dates TV interviews. The Defense allowed it and the court accepted it.
The other scenario is that the government enticed Holmes to UCD, and during his interview exposed him to covert bioweapons research (permanently changing brain DNA on a mass scale) claimed legal under 50 USC, Section 1520a, but actually illegal under the BWC and/or CWC international treaties. If previously unfamiliar with this legislation to “covertly poison the American public for fun and corporate profit”, they knew it would send Holmes to the shrink and withdraw from the program. He walked around in a funk while they continued to stalk him and set him up. They made purchases in his name, drugged him, rigged the apartment, had a picture taking party with his new CIA buddies; dumped the weapons on him as they revived him behind the theater and sped off. Actually…… very simple with today’s resources and technology of our insane government.
Realize Holmes attorneys aren’t even allowed to suggest the latter, much less prove it. That’s why they’re helping the prosecution for public opinion against Holmes. Save your psychological analysis for the mercenaries, terrorists, CIA and FBI that will shoot little girls through the head (or an entire theater) every day on orders, simply for a paycheck…. no questions asked. This was a neuroscience geek drugged to the gills.
These are the facts. Guilty?…….Hardly. Framed?……….Positively. Good luck James.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
March 13, 2013
“Positively” framed seems a bit fast. You have offered no evidence for the claim that he was drugged or that things were bought in his name. The fact that the FBI and CIA has done this (and worse) in the past (assuming you are correct) does not entail that it was done to Holmes. Your conspiracy theory is elaborate but again it’s only a “conspiracy theory”. You have supplied no evidence that any of this actually happened. It may very well be true but without evidence I would reject your story, as good as it sounds.
LikeLike
Maserati
March 13, 2013
You obviously haven’t been following the case as close as I have Justin. Holmes was drugged, the police even noted how huge his pupils were in the police report and testified he had no normal responses. The media noted his puppet hand gestures with the evidence bag and responses to police with the Joker to make him look and sound crazy, they just didn’t tell you he was drugged. He was even drugged for the first court appearence, it was obvious.
I’m a disenfranchised federal whistleblower myself. After being warned to shut up and threatened by the CIA, FBI, local police, judges and attorneys (and didn’t), I was locked in a psyche ward on two occasions in 2005 on false affidavits, maliciously drugged and even threatened by the shrinks to shut up. My friends of decades raised hell and they let me out.
As a quality Assurance manager (and certified Quality Engineer) in a factory for seven years, a medical cluster formed in late 2002. To make a long story short, it turned out that the DoD was running an accelerated experiment (back flushing toxic vapors), to develop toxic concentrations/ exposure limits to intentionally add toxins to the mandated EPA fuel additives and make the public chronically sick. The EPA Clean Air proram was he measurement equipment for ambient toxins, and corporations and Bush funded the DHHS for the data collection and studies through the hospitals and universities.
We get sick, and the medical, pharmacuetical, insurance, legal industries and government all get richer by funneling money through the medical system. You die prematurely, and it reduces pension fund and social sercurity liability also. Bankruptcy laws were changed and “reverse mortgages were created to steal home equity as well to pay medical bills resulting from the induced ilness. As the home mortgage scam was about to pop, many found themselves ill and unable to pay the ballooning mortgages. The increase in illness, medical and pharmaceutical profits through the 2000s speak for themselves. I forced the shut down of the factory experiment when I was sure I knew what was going on. Unfortunately, at least one was murdered in the factory as a result, some lost organs and others are chronically sick for life. The media apologized for not being allowed to go public.
The FBI and DOJ claimed it was legal behind closed doors, under then legislation 50 USC, Section 1520 (now revised to 1520a to sound protective). Unable to file criminal charges, I filed a federal civil tort (SF-95) to bring the question to a legal head. They distributed it to almost every federal agency in the country, transferring responsibility back and forth, but refused to discuss it or even respond to the tort. Read the original legislation. Maybe you have no idea how sociopathic, coordinated and cowardly this “establishment” is, or what our federal government is capable of. I’ve had conversations with the FBI, DOJ and police that would throw this country into a revolution. You don’t even want to know the assualts and crimes I’ve endured over the last decade.
Governors Spitzer (AIG/Bear Sterns) and Blagovavich (BofA) were both removed for whistleblowing on Wall Street, not what they were “officially” accused of. What do you think they’re doing to Robert Holmes? He’s watched his son being drugged for 8 months, and then eventually will be jailed for life. They’re sending a message to future colleagues: “Don’t even think about it. If we can’t get you we’ll go after your family”. I’m sure the message was recieved by those in Robert Holmes profession. It also was good PR to support gun regulations, and will ensure silence in the illegal bioweapons program Holmes interviewed for and rejected, no doubt on ethical concerns that drove him to the shrink. James was intentionally psychologically torted to set this scenario up…… an intentional “cognitive disequalibrium” psychological conflict.
Really think a neuroscience geek that probably never fired a gun in his life rigged his apartment like a EOD expert, and shot up a theater like a professional mercenary….. even if he hadn’t been drugged to a stupor? No…and everything else since the shooting points to Holmes being framed. The question right now is where Corbin Dates is, and whether the 23 year old AT&T call center CSR is even still alive? His original eyewitness testimony discredits the entire “official” story. He’s disappeared off the public grid and out of the media.
LikeLike
Maserati
January 22, 2014
No one has ever replied to my comments and facts in almost a year. Looks like Holmes is never going to have a trial where the prosecution’s impossible “specualtion” comes out, or the fact there isn’t one piece of evidence Holmes was in that theater. So what has happened with Holmes? Did he even get an insanity trial? It went silent, just like the framed Boston Bombers.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
January 22, 2014
A conspiracy theory at it’s best!
No evidence that he was in the theater? How would you know? Did you investigate this at all?
Boston Bombers were framed? Any evidence for that claim?
LikeLike
Maserati
January 22, 2014
What evidence is there that he was in the theater Justin? There is none. On the contrary, the interviews given by Corbin Dates prove that he was not the one who opened the theater door, and Holmes is much smaller in stature that the “professional” shooter described by Dates. There were at least two involved, and Holmes was neither. Holmes was found drugged at his car behind the theater. He could barely stand up and had no idea what happened in that theater. He’s not even going to get a trial as to the facts, thanks to his defense (prosecution) lawyers that pleaded guilty for him to prevent having to lie for the government anymore. This is a farce, and our entire “mental Illness” industry is a criminal fascist joke. MAybe the Scientologists have it right about these puppet quacks. They certainly do in this case.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
January 22, 2014
Well, having worked with those inflicted with mental health problems I know first hand that most of them are not faking. Their diseases are real and to suggest otherwise is a bit insensitive.
I have never claimed he is guilty, I am not in a position to make that claim. I used his case a possible example about moral responsibility and mental illness.
Save the conspiracy theories for a site that is focused on professing his guilt.
LikeLike
Maserati
January 22, 2014
I posted many facts contradictory and conficting to the official story Justin. If you remember my previous posts (above), remember I went through defamation by the government similar to Holmes so that they might hide corruption. I’m sure that after being framed, illegally incarcerated, drugged, threatened and brainwashed on behalf of teh government for a year that Holmes is a psychological mess and emotionally unrecognizable to his family and friends. You make the asertion that Holmes was menatlly ill when the shooting occured. Just pointing out he was drugged and framed, then immediately isolated with continued drugging since. Write an article about the moral esponsibilty of the Aurora Detectives that committed blatant perjury, the judge that allowed it and the defense team that supported the criminal acts. How about the moral responsibility of the hospital team that kept him drugged, and malpracticed him since? I hate the words “conspiracy theory”, it just reminds me of how stupid people are when it comes to industrial collusion and Crimes against Humanity by those in power.
LikeLike
Maserati
January 21, 2015
And in the present aftermath of the comments above, Holmes’ defense attorneys have leaded “guilty” for him, despite the evidence they intentionally suppressed and then pleaded “guilty” for him. As I stated, there was not one shred of evidence Holmes was ever even in that theater. The criminal LIBOR hearings Congress promised never happened. The type of internationally illegal and immoral Title 50 USC, Section 1520 bioweapons research and development in our Universities and hospitals continues. Holmes goes on trial for “insanity”, not to the facts that would prove him innocent. Corbin Dates is out of the media spotlight and no where presently in the web. You talk about ethics and mentally ill? Look at our US government, there is a bin of sociopath loonies of them in DC.
LikeLike