june Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 The fact that the situation could not occur without your direct intervention is what makes it direct. Accidents, where you did not or could not know and subsequently act accordingly, are different. please explain specifically why accidents and ignorance are different, because currently they fit perfectly within your aforementioned definition (bolded), and thus qualify as "direct". Are there storm clouds? Do you see streaks of lightning? Then that opens up the possibility of being electrocuted and makes the situation dangerous. are you saying that if a parent places their child on the ground when it's stormy and the child gets struck by lightening, the parent can then be held morally responsible?
cynicist Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 please explain specifically why accidents and ignorance are different, because currently they fit perfectly within your aforementioned distinction (bolded), and thus qualify as "direct". Accidents or ignorance are not deliberate. So no, they don't fit into my distinction. are you saying that if a parent places their child on the ground when it's stormy and the child gets struck by lightening, the parent can then be held morally responsible? Absolutely.
meta Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I have made this distinction, but I'll make it again, more succinctly. Any amount of control renders the separation. The amount of control determines the level of accountability. If one has no control, there can be no accountability. If one has complete control, they are fully accountable. If one has control, there is direct effect. If one has no control, there can only be indirect consequence; this is the distinction. AustinJames you have a brilliant way of putting things.And I agree with you on that post and other on this thread.But this logical causality principle leads me to question Stef's opinion on another matter.He often critises, rightfully, that the argument of "they did best with what they knew" concerning parenting is a fallacy and must not be accepted as an excuse for bad child treatment. And I agree with him.But to me we are now facing a contradiction: What is the accountability of a violent parent who is so stupid that moral is out of his/her control?From a moralist point of view, he/she is still guilty of mistreating a child.But from a causality perspective, he/she might not have had control. I am not implying that a violent father cannot be held responsible because his addiction might be impossible to control.I'll take the following exemple:An Individual suffers alcohol and heroin addiction because of his/her mother's habits during pregnancy,The individual grows up completly screwed , addict, maybe with violent tendancies that drug addiction developped. And that person has kids. Kids that are being mistreated.what is that individual's responsibilty to bad upbringing?From a moralist point of view, I guess he/she would be guilty, and should be held responsible?But from causal logic, he might have been so screwed up that self-questionning and responsibility might have been unreachable. I wonder.
june Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Accidents or ignorance are not deliberate. So no, they don't fit into my distinction. deliberateness is not noted as a qualifier in your distinction for what constitutes as "direct". so currently, yes, they do fit.
Recommended Posts