Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Babaism (Sheepish Adherence to Norms?) Message-ID: <2049@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 00:36:45 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2049 Posted: Wed Nov 6 00:36:45 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:17:05 EST References: <1663@pyuxd.UUCP> <1820@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1907@pyuxd.UUCP> <609@spar.UUCP> <1951@pyuxd.UUCP> <744@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 51 > Your understanding of "responsibility" is flawed. The primary point of > responsibility is to allocate concern for tasks beforehand, not to > allocate blame afterward. You are responsible for doing your job because > you are (presumably) capable of doing it, and have been assigned the > responsibility for doing it (in this case, through a free market > transaction). [ADAMS] No, my understanding is not flawed, it is your understanding of my understanding that is flawed. I am specifically referring to occurrences where responsibility is assigned/allocated simply by assertion, simply because there is the notion that responsibility (and later credit/blame) MUST be so assigned, by some moral perogative. > Similarly, all adults are responsible for obeying the law, because they > are (presumed) capable of it, and that responsibility has been assigned > to them (in this, by the law itself). Some people are in fact not so > capable; these people are legally insane, and are restrained for everyone > else's good. You got it. PRESUMED capable of it. Why are they (adults) presumed capable of it? Because it is presumed that as children/adolescents and throughout adult life they have incorporated the learning and reasoning behind the law (if indeed there is any). What if this isn't so? You say so yourself. For SOME cases where there is DEMONSTRABLE evidence of non-capability, where there is a danger to other people (and unfortunately sometimes without such a danger), they may be judged "insane" and their activity restricted. But what makes you so positive that there aren't other people who have likewise not learned the reasoning, and thus likewise may not be judged as responsible in the sense you describe? > The requirements for a person to be responsible for something are threefold: > 1) they must be capable of whatever they are responsible for. > 2) they must have been assigned responsibility for it, in accordance with > the social customs they live under. > 3) they must be aware that it is their responsibility. First, clearly (1) is not always true for many things for some people. Second, often (2) occurs despite the fact that (1) may not be true. > None of this says anything about whether the person is self-determined. But it certainly has one hell of a lot to do with it. If a person's mental state is determined by past events and experiences resulting in the current chemical makeup of the brain, the person cannot be held responsible (and thus accountable for "incorrect" behavior) if they have not experienced the learning necessary to set them up as what some people might call "proper moral agents", or (worse) if their learning has run counter to what we consider proper moral behavior toward other people. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr