Summary of "The infamous JoJo thought experiment - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud"

Overview

The video presents Susan Wolf’s “JoJo” thought experiment to probe moral responsibility. Jo the First is a ruthless dictator whose son, JoJo, grows up inside the castle surrounded only by obedience and praise. JoJo inherits the tyranny and commits cruel actions that reflect his deepest values. The central question: given JoJo’s unusual upbringing, how morally responsible is he for those actions?

The JoJo thought experiment (summary)

Jo the First raises his son JoJo inside a tyrannical court where dissent is suppressed and only praise and obedience are modeled. JoJo comes to share and act on those values. Is JoJo fully morally responsible for his cruel actions, given the way his values were formed?

Contrasting philosophical accounts

Deep Self View

Associated with Gary Watson and Harry Frankfurt.
Idea: moral responsibility attaches when actions express a person’s “deep self” — their true values, commitments, and identifying attitudes.
On this view, because JoJo acts from his values, he would be fully responsible.
Excuses (e.g., duress, intoxication) apply when actions don’t express the deep self.

Susan Wolf’s critique

Wolf argues we must also consider how the deep self was formed.
If JoJo never had a meaningful chance to learn right from wrong and lacks moral competence, this can undermine full responsibility.
Introduces the notion of moral competence: the capacity to understand right from wrong and to reflect on and revise one’s values.
If JoJo had genuine opportunities to develop moral competence (for example, a sibling who rejected their father or someone who tried to teach him), then responsibility is stronger. If not, blame may be misplaced.

Determinism and responsibility

Incompatibilists: if our actions are fully determined by antecedent factors (upbringing, biology), then no one is morally responsible.
Compatibilists: determinism can be compatible with moral responsibility; responsibility can still attach even if actions have deterministic causes.
The JoJo case functions as a test case that brings these broader debates into focus.

Counterfactual testing of responsibility

Compare outcomes across similar cases (e.g., a sister raised the same way who rejects tyranny).
Consider whether intervening influences could plausibly have made a moral difference (e.g., a court member trying to teach JoJo).
The presence or absence of nearby alternative histories bears on judgments about responsibility.

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

The JoJo thought experiment tests whether being raised in an abnormal, coercive environment absolves or mitigates moral responsibility.
The Deep Self View links responsibility to actions that express one’s deepest values.
Wolf’s addition: the origins of those values matter for responsibility.
Moral competence — understanding right from wrong and the ability to revise values — is key to assessing blame.
Assessing responsibility requires more than seeing actions express values; one must evaluate how those values arose and whether the agent had real chances to develop moral competence.

Checklist for evaluating moral responsibility (stepwise)

Determine whether the agent’s actions reflect their deep values/commitments (Deep Self criterion).
Investigate the formation of those values:
- Were they shaped by coercive or deliberately corrupting environments?
- Were there reliable opportunities for moral education or counter-influences?
Assess moral competence:
- Does the agent understand right vs. wrong?
- Can the agent reflect on and revise their values?
Consider alternative histories:
- Are there plausible nearby alternatives (e.g., similar people developing moral competence) that show the agent could have been different?
Place the case within the determinism debate:
- Decide whether you adopt a compatibilist or incompatibilist stance; this influences whether antecedent causes undermine responsibility.
Weigh these factors to reach a judgment about how much blame or responsibility is appropriate.

Open questions the video raises

Should responsibility depend not only on what someone cares about now, but on how those cares were produced?
If everyone’s deepest values are shaped by upbringing, does Wolf’s excuse generalize too far?
How much opportunity to learn or be influenced is required for full moral responsibility?
Do compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions better track our everyday moral practices?

Speakers and sources featured

Susan Wolf — originator of the JoJo case / primary theorist discussed
Gary Watson — advocate of the Deep Self View
Harry Frankfurt — influential defender of ideas related to the deep self (hierarchical model of desires)
Jo the First — fictional character in the thought experiment
JoJo — fictional character / subject of the thought experiment
Video presenters: Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud