The infamous jo jo thought experiment

Jo the First is a ruthless dictator who rules his country with an iron fist. Whenever he wants something, everyone hurries to appease him. And since complainers are permanently banished, Jo’s terrified servants treat his every whim as a wise and noble decision. To most onlookers, his rule appears cruel and unjust. But his beloved son JoJo doesn’t see any issues. This life is all JoJo's ever known, and he never witnesses any fear from Jo’s subjects or violence against them. All JoJo sees is his father’s strength, and his subjects’ obedience and praise.

After spending his entire childhood in the castle, JoJo grows up to inherit his father’s role and his style of rule. And just as with Jo the First, it’s clear that JoJo’s actions are wrong. But his case raises a question about morality that can also shed light on less extreme cases: given JoJo’s unusual upbringing, does he bear full moral responsibility for his actions? Philosophers Gary Watson and Harry Frankfurt would say yes. According to their Deep Self View, people are morally responsible for actions that stem from their true self,

meaning actions that reflect their deepest values and commitments. They believe people are less morally responsible for actions performed under the influence of external forces, such as committing a crime under duress or while intoxicated. But JoJo has no such excuse. His actions are the product of his values, and as such, Deep Self theorists would argue that he’s responsible for them. But what if JoJo’s values have been compromised? JoJo might be a monster, but he was raised in a very atypical environment.

Is he really just as responsible for his crimes as someone who had a normal childhood and then became a cruel dictator? And if JoJo isn’t to blame for who he is, how can we blame him for what he does? This is the argument of philosopher Susan Wolf, who invented JoJo’s case. Wolf believes that even though JoJo’s actions do reflect his deep self, when determining moral responsibility, we also need to consider how someone’s deep self came to be. And in JoJo's situation, Wolf believes that even if JoJo is acting on his own values,

his upbringing makes him less responsible for his cruelty. Wolf’s logic seems pretty reasonable in JoJo’s case. But if everyone’s deepest values are shaped by their upbringing, does that mean nobody is responsible for their actions? This is the attitude held by incompatibilists. These philosophers believe that if everything is predetermined by factors like our environment or biology, then no one is truly morally responsible for anything. By contrast, compatibilist philosophers argue that even if our decisions are the inevitable result of past events,

we can still be held responsible for them. The debate between these factions has been raging for centuries, but Wolf created JoJo’s case to focus on a different question. Unlike most people, JoJo had no meaningful opportunity to learn right from wrong. And since he continues to be cruel even as an adult, it would seem JoJo also lacks the capacity to self-reflect and change his values. To Wolf, this indicates that JoJo lacks basic moral competence. If he doesn’t know right from wrong and can no longer learn the difference,

surely it's misplaced to fully blame him for his actions. But this argument raises another important question: even with this horrible upbringing, was JoJo’s moral incompetence truly inevitable? Let’s imagine JoJo had a sister who was raised in the same environment but developed different values. If JoJa rejected their father’s tyranny, this suggests that JoJo could have done the same— an outcome that seemingly increases his moral responsibility. Similarly, what if a rogue court member tried to teach young JoJo

about justice and morality, but he still chose tyranny? Just as Wolf argues, it seems like the more chances JoJo has to develop moral competence, the less we can excuse his actions. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide. How should we determine moral responsibility? And is JoJo’s tyrannical nature truly inevitable— or can our understanding of right and wrong transcend our upbringing?Follow for more stories like this.