Autonomy and self-control

The faculty nature has endowed us with is not conscience in the moral or religious sense but in the sense of consciousness, the awareness of reality and of what is most efficient, not just for our own survival and development but for that of the whole species of which we are a member.

The degree of conscience of some individuals appears to be particularly limited, as illustrated by their behaviour: an irate mother who shakes her baby so violently that she inadvertently kills it; somebody who flicks a burning cigarette out the window of a car while driving on a forest road; parents who leave small children playing unattended on the edge of a swimming pool; nightclub proprietors who padlock fire-escape exits to prevent people entering without paying; people who live in natural catastrophe zones (near the sea-side, rivers, or lakes subject to flooding, in remote places exposed to severe criminal aggression, in forests that are potential furnaces, in seismic or hurricane zones, or near nuclear reactors) or somebody who dries a domestic animal in a micro-wave oven or uses electrical appliances while taking a bath, are a few typical examples. Many people live their lives dangerously without realizing it.

In the same manner, many people are capable of an extraordinary degree of indifference to the gross misfortune and suffering of others. Most of us are capable of calmly enjoying our dinner while casually regarding televised news broadcasts of the dramatic events devastating the lives of people whom we do not know personally. Behaviour patterns constantly reflect the widespread conviction that individual freedoms supersede natural and social constraints.

It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who first suggested in 1893 that societies dispose of a common or collective conscience, as a distinguishing factor similar to that of culture. This analysis appears to have been fairly largely approved and adopted over the years by his peers around the world. Carl Jung extended the concept in 1919 to what he called the collective unconscious. From there to suggest that it could also be extended to include a collective free will is a step some may be prepared to take at the risk of coining what others may consider an oxymoron. There seems no reason, however, why a group of individuals or even society as a whole should not be considered as exercising free will if we accept the idea of free will as autonomy. Collective free will in this sense would designate the autonomy of the group or society as a whole to make its own collective decisions and take whatever action it deems appropriate without any outside influence or interference.

Irresponsibility

So far as justice is concerned an individual over a prescribed minimum age is responsible for his or her acts, including individuals whose unconscious behaviour and failure to exercise due precaution is prejudicial to others. Ignorance of the law is neither an exonerating nor a mitigating factor. The onus of proof is on the individual or those assigned to his or her defence to establish irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility can be established by proving that the accused individual lacks a conscience or faculty of discernment due to a mental disorder and was incapable of wilful intent. This is achieved in less than one in a thousand of all criminal cases brought before the courts in most democratic countries.

The lack of conscience or faculty of discernment may be temporary due perhaps to the influence of drugs or alcohol or a severe emotional shock (jealousy, fear, irresistible impulse). If established, this may be admitted in certain circumstances as an exonerating or mitigating factor of responsibility, more likely the latter than the former.

With dementia on the rise in aging populations of the world's developed countries, the percentage of individuals disposing of free will is on the decline. Developed countries are generally experiencing slow or no population growth at all whereas dementia is taking on epidemic proportions. According to a 2000 report from the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 6% to 10% of the population 65 years and older in North America already have dementia.

A recent report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics for Alzheimer's Australia, a federation of state organisations funded by the Commonwealth Government, found that despite the fact that Australia is a young, vibrant country, dementia is without question the single biggest health issue facing its population in the 21st century. It is estimated that in the absence of new medications to treat dementia the number of people suffering from the epidemic will be multiplied by 3.5 to reach a total of just under 1 million by 2050 for an estimated population of 35 million, nearly 3% of the total population of the country.