Subject:
|
Re: personal responsibility (was:Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 16:13:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1176 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > Victims are partially responsible for being victims.
>
> So if I stomp on an infant or kill a sleeping person, they're still somehow
> responsible? Your assertion, after a fashion, amounts to "victims make
> themselves victims."
In the case of the infant, where were the parents? In the case of the
sleeping person, where are they sleeping, why didn't they sleep in a
safer place? Why didn't they get a buddy to watch them? Sure, the
necessary action to completely protect oneself may get ridiculous, but
that doesn't remove the responsibility. You have just chosen to ignore a
particular risk, which is reasonable, you CAN'T protect against all
risks, but you are responsible for understanding what risks you are
ignoring (and to realize that you may not even be aware of all the
risks, there's probably a bunch of chemicals I'm exposed to which I have
no idea how harmfull they are to me. I chose to ignore that risk, but if
you ask me about it, I'll certainly acknowledge that such a risk might
exist).
But what is most important is that just because I claim the "victim" has
this responsibility in no way eliminates the responsibility of the
perpetrator. If this debate about responsibility is an attempt to show
Chris and myself (and bunches of other people) to be cold and uncaring
because of this stance, I would reject your claim. I am not at all
uncaring (I would even care in the case of someone clearly "asking" for
it, though I also would acknowledge that they took a big risk and got
bit, they really should have done better, but that won't have me calling
for any less punishment of the perpretrator).
I think the fundamental point underlying this is why many people have
trouble understanding the Libertarian viewpoint. Using fundamental
acknowledgement of responsibility should allow us to make better choices
in life. One example, I have no problem whatsoever with airlines not
allowing passengers to carry weapons (though I would much rather that
the choice to allow or not allow weapons be the airline's as opposed to
the FAA's). I know that there is a certain risk of a deadly accident if
passengers are allowed to carry weapons. Since I don't want to take the
effort to evaluate all my fellow passengers as to whether they have a
weapon, and aren't responsible enough to make sure that weapon doesn't
cause an accident, I chose to DELEGATE the responsibility for safety in
this area to the airline, but that still doesn't remove my
responsibility, if I see a passenger manage to sneak a gun onto an
airplane, you can bet your booties that I will find a way to mention it
to an airline employee. I chose to accept the risk that the airline will
miss a weapon, in part, because I know they've got a much better chance
of preventing a weapon from being misused (by trying [rather hard] to
stop people from bringing them on in the first place), than I do by
simply observing all my fellow passengers.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
