rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
>> Hmmm, this is an intriguing proposition. The internal state, having gotten >> to be the way it is (with indoctrination and conditioning leading that >> internal state into various forms) is "responsible" for anything it does >> despite the fact that it is not responsible for becoming the way it is, >> which may mean a state in which it is unable to make reasoned decisions. >> I call this proposition a vacuous assertion. [Rich Rosen] > Why? What's the rosenist definition of "responsibility"? Does it require > a soul or something? Responsibility is accountability, a measure of > participation in a causal chain. Don't you believe in causality? [BABA] ("Rosenist"???) Responsibility has come to mean two things. First, as Baba says, there is the "measure of participation in a causal chain". X is responsible for Y if X caused Y to happen. But then Baba adds in "accountability", which really has nothing to do with THIS definition of responsibility. Yet responsibility has come to mean "charged with the duty of accomplishing/not accomplishing something, taking the credit for 'good' things accomplished, and taking the blame for 'bad' things accomplished (or 'good' things not accomplished)". If perchance we were able to create a sentient machine, and we conditioned/programmed it to kill someone, would the machine be "responsible" for the death of the person? NOT just in that first sense of "participation in a causal chain", but in the second sense of taking the blame for what occurred? How can you impose blame on a non-self-determining entity? Of course, you get some people who work backwards from a desired conclusion: well, humans ARE self-determining entities, otherwise how could we blame/credit ourselves and others for the things that are done... >> If a person has learned >> through religious indoctrination or any other means to be unable to make >> conscious rational decisions, if they have not learned such methods for >> making such decisions, how on earth could a reasonable thinking person >> hold them responsible? > If your thesis of materialistic determinism is correct, it can hardly > matter whether a person is capable of reason or not. Oh, but clearly it does. The person you are today exists as a result of all your experience that came before. If today you can think rationally, it is because you were taught to use your brain in a maximal fashion from early on in childhood, and have had that behavior reinforced by the positive results it offers in interfacing with reality. If today you are a mass murderer, is it because you "made a conscious free decision" to become a mass murderer? Or because those previous experiences led you to your current state? You saw your parents behaving violently and learned that this was "acceptable". You grew up behaving violently and had that behavior reinforced by the success of behaving violently. You learned that acting violently when things don't go your way is acceptable behavior. Etc. Which is it? >> Obviously a lot of people want to do so, because >> that enables them to engage in various forms of blame and punishment for >> wrongdoing. > As long as you're interested in talking about motives, Rich, do you take > pleasure in punishing people? Did your parents? You seem to have this > strange vision of the world as an endless sea of sadistic disciplinarians. I do? Obviously the people who formulate such notions as societal rules see things that way. Look at the Christian motif of "man is fallen, we are all evil and need to be regulated and controlled, and if we're not good we should be punished". The sea isn't endless, but I still haven't seen the other coastline yet. This notion permeates a good deal of western law: you do something wrong, YOU are a bad person who should be punished. That may not be the hallmark of "sadistic discplinarians", but it hardly sounds like the actions of rational people to me. > Or is it important to you to feel free of responsibility for something you > have (or haven't) done? Yes, I go around killing people, and I don't want to be blamed for it. Whatever the truth of the matter (I haven't killed or maimed in years...), the facts are this: we have human beings whose experiences lead them to become what they grow up to be. To tag them with "responsibility" when they do something wrong (i.e., punishment) strikes me as extremely shortsighted and vacuous. If what I say is false, regarding the way experience and exposure to the rest of the world leads you (conditions you) to become what you become, why do we bother with parenting, with attempting to imbue positive values in children, guiding that conditioning process toward a goal of a mature rational adult? Hell, by your reasoning, it doesn't matter what we do as parents. If we smoke in front of our kids, if we show violence and anger as acceptable behaviors, if we act dishonestly or hatefully when we serve as examples to our children, they are still "responsible" for what they do as adults, right? It wasn't OUR fault that the kid is now a delinquent, or a failure, or a murderer, or a hacker... (Unfortunately, a lot of parents feel EXACTLY that way.) If you want to believe the latter idea about people, then the ball is in your court to show how such thinking contrary to experience and learning can (and does) occur. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
In article <1951@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >("Rosenist"???) Responsibility has come to mean two things. First, as >Baba says, there is the "measure of participation in a causal chain". >X is responsible for Y if X caused Y to happen. But then Baba adds in >"accountability", which really has nothing to do with THIS definition of >responsibility. Yet responsibility has come to mean "charged with the duty >of accomplishing/not accomplishing something, taking the credit for 'good' >things accomplished, and taking the blame for 'bad' things accomplished (or >'good' things not accomplished)". If perchance we were able to create >a sentient machine, and we conditioned/programmed it to kill someone, would >the machine be "responsible" for the death of the person? NOT just in that >first sense of "participation in a causal chain", but in the second sense >of taking the blame for what occurred? How can you impose blame on a >non-self-determining entity? Of course, you get some people who work >backwards from a desired conclusion: well, humans ARE self-determining >entities, otherwise how could we blame/credit ourselves and others for the >things that are done... 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). 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. 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. None of this says anything about whether the person is self-determined. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/06/85)
> 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