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