Strawson: What is at Stake?

Strawson provides the basic argument, which is meant to show that true moral responsibility is impossible.  In short, because we are not responsible for how we are, we are not responsible for what we do.  He thinks that any compatibalist notion of moral responsibility will be too weak.

But why should we care if I cannot be in control of every single thing about myself?  Why does it matter if there are some things that I do or some ways that I am that I do not control?  Well, Strawson reminds us of the notion of heaven and hell.  Hell is a place of eternal punishment.  Heaven is a place of eternal reward.  If we are not completely responsible for who we are or what we do, then it seems like no person will ever really deserve heaven or hell!  In order to be deserving of either eternal punishment or eternal rewards, it seems like there must be absolute moral responsibility for actions.  And as Strawson points out, absolute responsibility for what we do depends on absolute responsibility for who we are.  Since we don't control everything about ourselves (where we were born, what family morals we were brought up with, etc.), we cannot be truly responsible in a way that makes us deserve either heaven or hell.