The Overslept Examination
The disciplinary committee of a higher secondary school must decide whether to penalise Rohan, a Class XII student who missed the final examination. Rohan had been sleeping only three hours a night for a week because of a family financial crisis; on the morning of the exam he overslept. He says, 'My action was caused by exhaustion and stress. If every event has a cause, I could not have done otherwise, so punishment is unjust.' The school rule says medical or family emergencies may be considered, but the student must inform the office before the exam. Rohan did not inform anyone. A teacher replies, 'If we accept your argument, no one is ever responsible for anything.' Another teacher says, 'Responsibility only requires that the action flow from your own character and choices, not that it be uncaused.' The committee has to choose between a strict penalty, a re-exam with counselling, and no action.
1. Distinguish determinism, hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism. Classify Rohan's claim and the two teachers' replies.
Read the worked answer
Determinism: every event, including human action, is causally determined by prior events. Hard determinism: determinism is true and therefore free will and moral responsibility are illusions. Libertarianism: determinism is false, or at least not universally true of human action, and free will requires the ability to do otherwise. Compatibilism: determinism may be true, but freedom and responsibility mean acting from one's own desires and reasoning without external coercion; contra-causal freedom is not required. Rohan's argument combines determinism with hard determinism: caused, therefore could not have done otherwise, therefore not responsible. The second teacher is a compatibilist. The first teacher's slippery-slope objection is a practical warning, not a philosophical refutation; it assumes that excusing one case must excuse all cases, which does not follow.
2. How does Hume's account of causation affect the inference from 'my action was caused' to 'I could not have done otherwise'?
Read the worked answer
On Hume's account, causation is constant conjunction plus a habit of expectation; we do not perceive a necessary connection. So the inference from 'my action was caused' to 'I was compelled' is not immediate. A cause may be a reason-responsive process. Exhaustion and stress influenced Rohan, but he could still have set an alarm or informed the office. Compatibilists such as Hume and Mill argue that responsibility requires that the action flow from the agent's character and intentions, not that it be uncaused. The 'could not have done otherwise' condition is too strong if read metaphysically; a more plausible condition is that the agent was not coerced and had the relevant capacities. Rohan's failure to inform the office is a relevant omission, though his exhaustion reduces culpability.
3. Using your analysis, what should the committee decide, and how should it justify the decision?
Read the worked answer
The committee should distinguish causal explanation from excuse. A re-exam with counselling is the best fit: it recognises that exhaustion and family crisis causally affected Rohan, so a strict penalty is disproportionate, but it also holds him responsible for not using the available emergency procedure. No action would ignore the school's legitimate interest in notice and would treat him as passive. The decision should state that responsibility is not all-or-nothing: diminished capacity can mitigate without eliminating agency. The committee should also note that the rule's purpose is to allow orderly arrangements, not to punish illness; a prospective policy could require any student facing an emergency to email the office, with a grace period. This makes the response consistent with compatibilism: Rohan's action was caused, but it was still his action, and the school can respond to reasons without pretending that causes do not exist.