When is an individual not responsible for their own behavior? What about groups? Committees? Executive boards?
A person who gets behind the wheel of a car after consuming ethanol is responsible for that decision. If we catch them, or they hurt someone, we put them in a cage(Sometimes, sometimes not). Because they are 'responsible' for their behavior.
Another pair of people consume ethanol and engage in sexual activity. Later we put one of them in a cage, because one of them is 'responsible' and one is not.
An adult is sometimes 'responsible' for the well-being and safety of certain children, but for some reason not 'responsible' for others. This one I can make rational arguments for, but they have a lot of basis in genetic competition in general, and eugenics in specific.
Also, I would prefer to address this question without bringing gender into it, because I hold every competent adult human to the same standards of behavior and maturity.
Regarding this ^^^ bit, I think it's necessary to write laws with that assumption.
This may interest you, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility Nobody's actions are without influence of others, so how can anything truly be one sole person's fault, and furthermore, the idea that we actually could choose differently at any given moment of our past given the past before that moment stayed the same seems impossible.
Not being responsible for your behavior can be very easy in this country. See, our forefathers realized the profound economic disadvantage that being responsible for your actions carries, so they invented the LLC and corporation. Corporations are legally people and are responsible for their employees' actions, which is much more convenient than the employees themselves or the company's owner being responsible. And since a corporation only really exists as a financial entity, what this means is that if you own a corporation, the worst thing that can happen in terms of liability is the corporation runs out of money and your bank account stays safe. Your company gets sued for what you did, and your company is the only thing at stake. Transferring responsibility to a company is ridiculous, by the way. It's like having your gun be responsible for all the people you shot and then when people come to punish you, they just break your gun. Responsibility, it could be said, is the prerogative of the poor.
I completely understand, and corporate personhood is both insane and terrible for the vast majority of people. But I think anyone with an education on the issue is unanimously against it, or they are a paid shill. (Koch Brothers, et al) How would you define 'responsibility?'
I would consider someone responsible for something if they are subject to its consequences. And if every educated person was against corporate personhood, we wouldn't have it in the first place. There are arguments to be made in its favor -- not that I agree with them, but the issue is not so simple or one sided as you suggest
i think there are different questions in the scenarios you provided. some of them have to do with civil obedience, others with altruistic behavior. there is a difference in the sense that one is cultural and the other genetic. incarcerating someone for braking a law,...whatever law it may be is a cultural causation; helping children is a genetic rooted cause. so i think the situations you proposed are interesting, however, the reasons are vastly different and hence different conversations- which is probably why it seems like a big question.
I'm looking for instances where the word 'Responsible' has legal ramifications. Or rather, where it doesn't, and why?i think there are different questions in the scenarios you provided. some of them have to do with civil obedience, others with altruistic behavior.
I suppose that is a legal matter and is derived from keeping order. we woudl have to look back to Hammurabi code, as to why particular laws are upheld and which ones are not. it obviously depends on society a great deal. so lets take the example of a speeding ticket....if i speed, i am responsible for the consequence, weather its a ticket, or a licence revoked or whatnot. one is responsible for the actions. now the punishment, or reprimanding of the action....that differs. in the US, if you steal, you are responsible to make them whole again, via monetary, or giving your time or freedoms... etc etc in saudi arabia, for the same crime, one is responsible not only for making the victim whole again, but is also responsible for teaching a lesson, which he fulfills by getting his hand cut off. is that what you mean?
I guess that different degrees of 'responsibility' are definitely apparent. Maybe a better question is 'What determines which laws are actually enforced in a culture?' or something along those lines. Why did you bring up altruism in your original reply?
well, i suppose your first question- the degree of order is the foundation of any set of laws, not justice, but order. nietzche has a lot to say regarding how relative justice can be. you said that why we would take care of kids or people less fortunate or cant help themselves, we we are responsible for that. maybe i misinterpreted the question, which is probably the case. but there are arguments of why we take care of other human beings before ourselves, and how those become unspoken laws, not legal. and if those unspoken laws are the natural state of man which is the real question. how does being responsible for others welfare a natural state of man? dawkins does a good job detailing that.
The question is, crudely, 'Why don't we take care of poor/sick/homeless strangers with the same love and hope as we would our own blood-kin?' phrased in more vague terms really. So kind of. How are altruism and responsibility related? (Pardon me if I seem stubborn, there's a particular point I'm trying to nail down for myself, philosophically.)
ok...so i think i know what you are saying. for me, i side with richard dawkins on this and say that we dont do this because of our genetics. its a survival issue. so self preservation is our number one goal, we however know that we are going to die, so we have kids, and kids will be the vehicle for our genes to survive, so we take care of them. he made the argument, if you are 1, as a genetic importance, then your siblings or kids would be 1/2, because they carry 1/2 of your genes. and your cousins 1/4 and so on...when you get to 1/8, its just not worth caring because the gene pool is so different. so we are responsible to ourselves and our genes in a sense to not let them die, adn one way of doing that is to have others carry them......does that make sense?
I understand Dawkins arguments. I just don't find them particularly compelling in a more generalized humanist perspective. To elaborate, of course my family get the majority of my financial, emotional, social, etc, support. I'm around them the most. But does that preclude me from inviting strangers in need into my life if I have the ability to help them without drastic change in my quality of life? To give perspective, I plan on never having biological children, so my genetic legacy isn't that important to me. I have other family members who are having plenty of children, the chromosomes that I would value according to Dawkins are being passed on, in fact, in greater variety than I would have been able to manage on my own. Dawkins argument made perfect sense to me when Ayn Rand also made perfect sense to me. Both are a bit too sure of themselves to be reasonable to a mature mind.
it does mean that you wouldn't let a stranger in, because why woudl you share resources. i think what is happening is that the application of our instincts in modern times dosent always line up. if i were alive 27000 years ago, i woudl never let anyone come in and just out of good will share the provisions of the tribe. there is a reason for that, and that reason is still carried by us. we haven't diluted those instincts. can i ask you why you never plan on having biological children? that seems very strange to me and i never understood why you never want to propagate your genes-unless you have one for self destruction. your nephews, as close as they are, they would never be as close genetically to your kids. also...how do you know which genes you want to pass on and that your nephews carry it?
one does not pass them on to have variety, the reason we have variety is a survival mechanism. we want to pass on the same, its a fight between the woman and the man to pass on as many of theirs dominant, recessive) as they can. so i want to pass on black hair, she wants to pass on red...etc etc this is a very large argument, with many moving parts and we can get caught up easily and drift- also, is the only reason dawkins not appeal to you is because he seems too sure of himself?
I have a chronic heart condition. It's required me to have one major surgery, and 2 pacemakers in my first 22 years of life, not including other complications. While the experiences that it has given me are valuable, and instructional, I would not wish them up on anyone. It has a greater than 50% chance of passing on to my children. This, in combination with several other factors about my genetics incline me to not want to pass them on. My interest is in the longevity of the species, and the species will do just fine without my particular genetics. It is benefited more by my intellectual/professional/social/artistic legacy.
Can I ask what No, he's become something grotesque in his old age. I read The Selfish Gene, and appreciated it for the necessary piece of thought that it represents.can i ask you why you never plan on having biological children?
there is a reason for that, and that reason is still carried by us. we haven't diluted those instincts
this 'reason' is? If you could state it in the most simple and direct terms, it would be greatly appreciated. is the only reason dawkins not appeal to you is because he seems too sure of himself?
i dot think that is a beneficial reason...i mean if richard hawking's dad thought i carry the gene for xyz, that woudlnt have benefited the species...right? not to say i am pro life, but in this case i don think you are the one who gets to decide which genes are important enough to pass on. you could be caring a gene that makes us resistant to some future strand of ebola or something. as far as the reason, its genetic. everything we are is in one way or another to preserve our genes. sharing resources, in any case, is only beneficial when it makes the likelihood of our genes survival more probable. so fear is an instinct that we might not have such a need for living in america suburbia, but we had much need for it 10000 years ago. and it has not faded. as with other genes that were present because they evolved to be dominant, they have kept themselves that way. so sexual desires and fear still dominate our actions. the issue and the confusion comes, in my opinion, when these genetic dominant traits dont line up with todays culture. becasue our genes say, dont share resources, but society sais...share away, its sinful not to. yes?
But I do, I'm afraid. This is a bold statement, and actually meshes well with a modern genetic study that identifies a set of 'warrior' genes, whose presence or absence up- or down-regulates biochemical aggression in the body. If you have the gene, you are more prone to take large risks, be more aggressive in all walks of life really, which, over millenia, leads to aggression being a highly selected for trait. I find it interesting you mention sin as a motivating force.i don think you are the one who gets to decide which genes are important enough to pass on.
the issue and the confusion comes, in my opinion, when these genetic dominant traits dont line up with todays culture.
faith is very powerful... and no, i dont think you get to decide. i think you put your sperm in there, and hope that the brown eyes show up. you or i dont decide which genes get passed down. if we did, then you woudl take the gene without the heart condition and throw it away adn have kids, right?
Yep. Still not worth it. I imagine a scenario, where my genetic child finds out that I knew everything I knew about my illness, it's inheritability, the high risk of death in adolescence, the restrictions it places on those who manage to survive to adulthood, and conceived them anyway. I knew that they had a high likelihood of suffering as I have suffered, and inflicted it upon them anyway. I can't claim ignorance, as my parents do. They had no idea what was in their genes, no one did, 22 years ago. We've left the topic I want to discuss though, which is responsibility.have you thought of that?
Hey TB, if you look in the upper right hand corner of the comment box when you are making a reply or a comment, you will see the "markup." -Click on it for a description.
Cultural– and subsequently legal– parameters define responsibility for the sake of structure, but philosophically speaking I think the following argument can be made The Person who makes decision X that leads to failure Y or success Z, makes said decision because of all the influences impressed upon him from birth, from society and environment, that lead him to believe that decision X is the "best" decision from all given options at the time. Person decided X on their own, but every experience and interaction with every single thing ever encountered in Person's life is responsible collectively, because Person is a direct result of the combined impacts of all influences and interactions thereof. Legally, realistically, and especially socially, this argument cannot stand to reason because people expect direct, singular punishment on a single "responsible" person, based on their previously-defined liabilities. Saying "I didn't take ethanol, seeing my mom take ethanol when I was 8 made me do it" doesn't fly in court when you've hurt someone at age 20. Classic debate though, I'm curious who else throws something out there/argues this.
Personally, I enjoy your description, and agree with it mostly. A person is the sum of their environments effect on their genetics, essentially. The problem however, is that while you admit that Person decided X on their own, but every experience and interaction with every single thing ever encountered in Person's life is responsible collectively
you deny his agency. Personally I don't believe all that much in free will, but I think that it's necessary that a large part of laws be written as if we do.