Subject:
|
personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:04:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1088 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > To some degree
> > everyone who gets in an accident is _partially_ responsible for that • accident.
>
> Do you mean they're "responsible" because they happened to be in the wrong
> place at the wrong time? Or "they're asking for it?"
To say that one is "asking for it" asserts they desire that outcome. Few
people desire to be raped or collided with by another automobile. On the other
hand, they didn't desire the opposite enough to secure that outcome. Such
security is possible if it's important enough to you.
> So if I start knifing
> people at random the next time I'm on the subway, it's somehow they're fault,
> at least partially?
Fault has these connotations that some of you seem to have issues with. I
basically agree with the statement above, but I think it's more productive for
us to use the word responsbility instead. Does everyone know that crimes
sometimes happen in the subway? That certain sections are especially
dangerous? I think so. Is there another form of transport that might be
safer? Could your knifing victims have chosen to wear armor? (I realize that
this is contextually silly, but it's a perfect logical example.) Victims are
partially responsible for being victims.
> If so, then I plan to use that defense at my hearing.
Good luck. But I'm not really concerned with the aberant practices of some
court or another. I'm talking about responsibility. This isn't something that
any court can either assign or abrogate. It is just there.
> "Your honor, I'm not guilty because I was stabbing at the air, an no one
> would've gotten hurt if those people hadn't been standing in the way."
I would call that a reasonable defense -- unless you were lying, and as your
judge I would remand you to the custody of the state permanently where you
could be allowed to serve your community, attempting to pay of the damge that
you caused, albeit accidentaly as a result of your subhuman stability.
The difference between humans and other animals is that we expect them to
understand this responsibility. If you want to be classified as a wild animal,
we can treat you as such. What happens when a dog bites a stranger? Oh,
that's right, he's put down.
> In both the case of government bail-out or parental protections, I consider
> > them more like insurance providers. And I admit that you can apply the same
> > thing to parents...but it seems different. I didn't get to pick my parents,
> > but I just had to wait.
>
> By your own assertion you are at least partially responsible for the parents
> you wound up with, whether you chose them or not.
No, I am responsible for what I make of them. As an analogy, they are a
premis, and I am responsible for the conclusion. I keep wanting to just say
that as my creators they get slightly different rules, but that's too weasly,
so I'll stick to this approach unless you can show me that its untennable.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Do you mean they're "responsible" because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or "they're asking for it?" So if I start knifing people at random the next time I'm on the subway, it's somehow they're fault, at least (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
