In this essay I will argue that, while Strawson's basic argument is valid, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term "acting morally responsible" that holds us all responsible for our actions. First, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument and distinguish between Strawson's and society's definitions of being morally responsible. Second, I will justify Strawson's first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute author Ian McEwan's response. In short, Strawson's Basic Argument demonstrates that, ultimately, we cannot be morally responsible for what we do. He concludes this from three premises: 1) Humans behave the way they behave because of the way they are 2) Whether you will be responsible for thingsHowever, as mentioned above, society makes the words illegal and immoral synonymous. For example, in a very traditional, albeit outdated, African tribe, cannibalism exists and is not frowned upon. Since this is the way the tribe has lived for centuries and therefore the way they are, they cannot be held responsible for their actions according to Strawson. While I believe this to be true, society still considers the actions of this tribe to be immoral, and regardless of who they are or how they were raised, they would still be held accountable. Another example would be a child operating a motor vehicle underage. Although Strawson might say that if the child were raised in an environment where his parents taught him that doing so was right, he should not be held morally responsible, society would say otherwise. Strawson's biggest mistake in his argument is not realizing that society has altered the definition of moral responsibility. Strawson is right that we cannot control the person we are, but he does not say that we cannot control the rules dictated by society that we are expected to follow at the moment in which we are.