The key step in the basic argument against ultimate moral responsibility,
goes like this: (1) You do what you do - in the circumstances in which you
find yourself - because of the way you are. (2) So if you're going to be
ultimately responsible for what you do, you're going to have to be ultimately
responsible for the way you are - at least in certain mental respects. (3) But
you can't be ultimately responsible for the way you are (for the reasons just
given [earlier in the interview Strawson had stated that you cannot be
responsible for the way you are, unless you are responsible for your genetic
inheritance and upbringing]). (4) So you can't be ultimately responsible for
what you do.
This shows that ultimately, if you follow a cause and effect chain backwards, no one can be held responsible for what they do. The cause and effect chain must be used in the case of responsibility, because that is the meaning of responsibility, to be the cause of an act. Yet, as we know, nothing can be the cause of itself. So, if an individual causes or is responsible for some action, then there was some other thing that caused or was responsible for that individual doing what they did. It is very easy to follow back through this chain to see what caused what. Except, this chain never stops. The chain could go back to the creation of the Universe, if we had the records. Then, if one believes in God, then he as "The Mover" is ultimately responsible for every "good" and "bad" action that is performed. This then is a contradiction, since God is "all good" and cannot cause or be responsible for "bad" actions. If one believes in the "Big Bang," then this explosion is responsible for everything. This cannot be the case either, that would be like giving responsibility to a tornado for a farm house that was destroyed by it. We may say that it caused the damage, but it is not "responsible" for the damage in the way that we think "people" are responsible. So, whether one believes in the Christian-Judeo-Muslim God or not, "responsibility" does not exist.
So, looking at Paris Hilton's dilemma in this view of responsibility, one can see that because of who she is, her genetics, and upbringing she had no other choice but to do what she did. This does not make her a villain, for from this view of responsibility she is no more responsible for driving after drinking than she is responsible for how tall she is.
Galen's theory about responsibility seems very logical and asks the question if you cannot go back to an infinite cause and effect chain, then where do you "cut-off" responsibility? If being responsible is the act of causing something, then one must go back to all the actions that are responsible for the action before it. The conclusion is that if you do make a "cut-off" point for responsibility, then that negates responsibility and you are not left with anything that could be called responsibility. Also, if you do allow the cause and effect chain, then "responsibility" is not a word that makes any sense, for it shows that God or the Big Bang as the ultimate entity that is responsible for all actions.
An essay I wrote concerning "wisdom" as our only control in life
Naturalism.Org, a large site concerning "free-will" and "responsibility."
A site with all of the terminology about "free-will" and determinism
The Garden of Forking Paths: A free will blog
An introductory free will site