ontological rant in the court of the imagination

The defendant stood before the judge in the hushed courtroom. He began speaking.

“I plead not guilty, your honor. In fact, I cannot but plead not guilty. My “not guilty plea” is nothing but the product of neuronal activity within my head. Even though I do feel a bit guilty about having caused the death of my loved one with that chop stick, that guilt has no practical effect on my plea. Even though I would have preferred to avoid her death, I had no direct control over the act. In fact, every time I am using the word “I” in this sentence, it is only for semantic reasons, for there is no “I” in the sense that the court commonly understands it. There is only an agglomeration of cells functioning as a unit, said unit representing nothing more than the gross accumulation of causes and effects within, and without. In fact, as I shall show, the movements associated with the physical entity labeled “I” were nothing more than the utterly unavoidable series of causes and effects, emanating from outside this body, setting off the pertinent internal string of causes/effects, issuing in an overall external physical act which, in sum, was but another cause to the effect, or consequence, under the court’s current consideration.

I would like to remind the court of a number of issues pertinent to my defense. A cursory look at the legal record, as well as at prevailing punitive law, shows that society grants the existence of different levels of responsibility for the acts of its members. Different punishments are meted out for taking another life, depending on what the court assumes to be the degree of intent of the killing. Courts look upon premeditation as proof of the highest degree of intent, of responsibility. From there we move down to premeditation with certain levels of just cause (self-defense, hunger, etc.). Next on the descending scale of responsibility are killings done in a state of passion. From there we go down to the myriad levels of insanity pleas. Finally, there are killings that can be said to be entirely accidental. All imply a number of elements – a sense of control, independent will, a clearly defined and existent self – in formulating the level of intent and responsibility. Note that at the lower end of this scale, the element of choice, of individual, clear-headed decision making leading to the act, becomes less and less applicable…until, in the case of proven and unavoidable accident, it is inapplicable altogether.
I would like to submit to the court that the same lack of individual will, or free choice, applies also to the most cold-headed, thoroughly deliberated murder. I challenge the court to identify, in a pertinent and rationally acceptable manner, the element that distinguishes murder in the first degree from accidental homicide. The court will no doubt bring up the autonomous self, the “free will”. But can the court really show physical evidence of such phenomena? I claim that it cannot. Contemporary brain science is revealing the physiological functioning of the brain, and of its relation to bodily movement – or behavior. What we can clearly demonstrate is a highly complex system of neurological, electro-chemical activity, a universe of causes and effects. Yet there is nothing in science that has clearly identified the active, individual, “morally autonomous agent” within all this.
If I could claim that I was clinically insane at the time of the killing, you would lower my sentence. If I could claim that another person literally forced me to shove that chop stick up the nose of my wife, you would lower my sentence, or even declare me innocent.
If believe that I need no such countervailing claims. The body that is identified as “me” did indeed commit the act in question. However, you are unable to reasonably show that there is a “moral agent” within this body to assume guilt. The court has only shown a series of causes and effects.”

The judge looked on in increasing annoyance, as did the jury. “Sir,” said the judge, “do you really expect us to take that argument seriously?”
“I’m sorry, your honor”, replied the accused. “I was unable to argue in any other way. I am thoroughly determined to argue against free-will…I am thoroughly determined…it…I…the force…oneness…”
The eyes of the accused began to dart back and forth across the courtroom, as he quickly lost composure.
He continued, his voice growing louder and louder. “There is no I!...and all of you!!...there is no “you”…you fools!!...” A bit of spittle began to form on his lips. “Everything you do is determined…everything!!...it is all laid out…it is all there…!....IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

He was wrestled to the floor by several guards as the last words echoed throughout the chamber.

“We hold the defendant guilty as charged.”