It is a common principle of theistic philosophy, that the soul can transcend its past history and rise above circumstances of adversity. In other words despite all encounters of unexpected reversal and calamity, the human being has the capacity to make the right decision. This is also the same principle that social systems of reward and punishment are based on (eg – the legal system) The alternative view is that personal decision is irrelevant and that we are ultimately controlled by material nature (ie, body, gender, environment, dna etc). Ascribing fault of reason to something external, in the same manner that one ascribes sickness to a virus, removes the perpetrator from the platform of responsibility. This thread looks at (?hopefully?) how determining the fault of wrong doing to be a material cause undermines our humanity, and what is responsible for such an outlook developing. Take for example suicide. Suicide is seen as wrong since it involves a false sense of proprietorship, much akin to murder. Murder, like suicide, takes away a person who works in the maintenance/care of others (in either case of murder or suicide, persons associated with the deceased experience grief, etc). However it is not possible to determine suicide as reprehensible unless we also accept that whoever has committed suicide had the ability and opportunity to determine the consequences of their decision. Virusifying the act of suicide is therefore a kind of denial of one's humanity or one’s ability to make free choices. The virusification of wrongdoing has social implications that reach further than acts of suicide.... as seen by this poignant example of the moral reasoning that follows from the virusification of wrong behavior: (bold emphasis added) In other words, while the act of abuse is reprehensible, and can act as a factor that can influence our decisions, still the ultimate responsibility of decisions lies with the individual. Notice in this example that he places the responsibility for his own relationship breakdown and criminal activity on someone else. He does not consider himself guilty of wrongdoing but rather sees his own wrongdoing as an external condition instead of as a bad decision. This same notion of the inherent responsibility of self is voiced by philosopher and mathematician, Roger Penrose Who has virusified wrongdoing? It is reasonable to say that as a science and profession, psychology has over the last 50 years been responsible?
Even the most reliable of vehicles can hit black ice. When the brakes are faulty you've got additional problems.
Therefore hitting a patch of black ice only becomes a fault of reason when one is aware that the black ice is before one's vehicle but proceeds anyway
It's all a little bit too mechanical for me. For entities that rely exclusively on logic, see: Robots. Humans, unfortunately, are regularly flooded with all kinds of chemicals that can interfere with the wiring.
still, on an ultimate level, we wouldn't hesitate to say that a person was unaware of the black ice is due different consequences from a person that was aware of the black ice (if insurance companies have difficulty with it, its only a difficulty in ascertaining the state of awareness before the accident). that is a major difference between a robot and a human (and the unattained ambition of AI) - no sense of responsibility (or no sense of self)
But like I said: if your brakes are faulty, your steering column locked, obstructions to the left and right, sometimes there's only one path you can follow. Sometimes we lose control; run out of choices. Indeed. They literally don't know how lucky they are. The first classic study of suicide relates it to levels of social integration: when our social support networks dissolve or become too restricting and repressive, killing yourself can seem like a very rational choice. Sometimes people feel like they've nothing and no-one left to live for, and nothing left to lose.
exactly - no choice means no responsibility the value of responsibility is also underrated therefore they make the decision to commit suicide
Albeit one made whilst the balance of the mind is disturbed. When our social networks dissolve our sense of responsibility towards the people that make up those networks dissolves with them. Suicides typically feel a strong sense of isolation from their peers. A sense of responsibility can only take you so far. It's what keeps many potential suicides hanging on but, unfortunately, external pressures - yes, I'm afraid so - prove too much for others. Ironically, an excessive sense of responsibility can be one of those pressures. It would be wonderful if we all had the strength of mind to cope with whatever life throws at us. Alas, some of us are all too human and, social animals that we are, greatly dependent on the support and approval of others for our mental and emotional well-being. When we feel worthless (perhaps because everyone tells us we're worthless) we lose the sense that we have anything of value left to contribute.
I think you misunderstood what LG meant by responsibility. I'm pretty sure he's talking about Free Will. Free Will and responsibility are intimately linked to one another. If you are not responsible for your actions, it implies that you lacked the free will to make a decision which was contrary to what seemed to be a perfectly rational and acceptable act for you to commit, in this case, suicide. The sense of worthlessness that someone who commits suicide feels does not pul the trigger of the gun against their temple, or slide the razor across their wrists, or down the bottle of pills. What you just said doesn't negate that persons responsibility for their actions, because at the end of the day they are still deciding to take action in response to that feeling of worthlessness and kill themselves. There is always another option, even if it may seem to be the less pleasant choice. People are fully capable of choosing the action which seems to be the wrong one to them.
Oh, I understand exactly where LG's coming from, believe me. The moment this thread becomes a rarified, masturbatory discussion of 'What Man Should Be' in place of a humble recognition of what he actually is - namely, a dirty ape stumbling blindly amongst the tower blocks, wondering how on Earth he got there - I'll rapidly lose all interest (What the Hell has suicide got to do with Ethics, Morality and Justice anyway? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). For now though I'm happy to continue pointing out that all his high ideals mean precisely fuck-all squared to the panic-stricken heads of low-income families fending off debt collectors with one hand and crazed ex-husbands with the other. Chance, not choices, are what divide us from them.
As someone whos dealt with severe depression youre pretty much spot on in your assesment of it redarmy11. But i think youre missing the general point at stake here, its not such intellectual masturbation, this is a very real problem facing society (ask any judge or lawyer) culpability of action is getting increasingly easier to dismiss from a legal stand-point. If we're simply the sum of our experience and our genetics (both largely out of our control) how can we be held accountable for anything? Where does my internal will begin and these forces 'acting' upon me end?
Actually this thread does look at "what he is" - which basically boils down to the two options given by heliocentric 1) possessed of a will independent of experience and genetics 2) possessed of nothing more except the sum result of our experience and genetics And as also indicated by heliocentric, the legal implications are perplexing (if you say 2), there is no reason why a rapist or murderer can be held as criminally culpable) here is a recent example that is not particularly unique http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...as-off-his-head/2007/06/14/1181414466913.html
This thread has been linked to in a recent thread - I would say it was mainly not acting responsibly, mainly given that in psychology, even though there is an acute awareness of its experimental and theoretical nature, psychologists and psychiatrists still in effect act in a normative fashion - as if they would be in the possession of absolute knowledge. If someone is in the position to prescribe strong medications, even as mandatory, and to hospitalize people against their will, then I expect that a person with such authority should have absolute knowledge. I think that part of the validity that people generally ascribe to psychology and psychiatry is a secondary justification - "If psychologists/psychiatrists have so much power, even to hospitalize people and to administer electroshocks, then it must be that they know what they are doing, and as such, they should be trusted." Because to admit that people who have so much power in their hands could be wrong, is just too frightening. So, to answer the earlier question: I would say that it is backwards - in the sense that if we see that something or someone is strong, has power, we assume that it or they must be right or superior. The man in your above example has blamed his offending on drugs and alcohol - all that was in his vision field were drugs and alcohol, and the effects thereof; so much so that he failed to see he was the one taking those drugs and alcohol (which he probably took while he was overwhelmed by something else, say, his unhappy childhood). Might makes right. This is undeniably true. But to make sense of such reasoning - so that we do not fall into blaming and irresponsibilty -, we have to go back to the very beginning, to the First Mighty Person. Usually, we are not so thorough, but only look at the relatively few powerful factor that are immediately visible to us, in a particular situation. So, wrongdoing becomes virusified when our scope is too narrow.
Slightly off-topic, but interesting: In an episode of Boston Legal, there was a case where a minor wanted that she be prescribed a medication that permanently erases memory for some time period. Namely, in some awkward incident, she had seen a naked priest (no abuse issues involved), and she feared she would be traumatized by the event for the rest of her life. As her parents refused to consent to giving her the medication, she started a legal case to get it. The opposing counselor, however, argued that our experiences are what makes us who we are - so to erase some experiences would be to lessen us, and that instead of medically altering our minds, we should find conscious ways to deal with our experiences, whatever they are. (The girl didn't get the medication.)
