How do you determine responsibility where other people are involved?

[DaVinci]

Can someone explain to me the idea of personal responsibility where other people are involved and have an influence over your life?

 

So for example, let's say Man A is walking home when he is abducted by Man B. Man B has knocked out Man A with a chloroform soaked rag, and thrown him in the back of his trunk. When Man A wakes up he finds himself in an empty field in the middle of nowhere and Man B has disappeared. Man A has no clothes, money, or cell phone, and can't see any signs of human civilization for miles around him. So who is responsible for what happens to Man A at this point? If Man A decides to walk east to look for help instead of walking west and he dies of dehydration because there was no civilization and no water of any kind for a hundred miles to the east, but there was a town a few hours from his original position to the west that he could have made it to, who is responsible for his death? Himself because he chose to take the path east? Man B because he put Man A in this situation in the first place? Both of them?

[Agalloch]

Man B is obviously responsible for anything that happens to Man A after he abondons him in a field far from civilisation without clothes, food, water or shelter.

 

Where do you see ambiguity?

[DaVinci]

Man B is obviously responsible for anything that happens to Man A after he abondons him in a field far from civilisation without clothes, food, water or shelter. Where do you see ambiguity?

How can Man B be responsible for which direction Man A walks in? Sure, Man B is responsible for taking Man A into the middle of nowhere, but after he leaves he has no control over the legs of Man A, or the voice of Man A, or the emotional state of Man A? Correct? Even if we say Man B is responsible for the direction Man A walks in and what happens to Man A after being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, when does Man B's responsibility for Man A's actions end? Let's say Man A makes it to civilization, finds help and makes it back home, but a year later Man A is not over the trauma of this event and acts out in a destructive way against someone else? What if he damages property or assaults someone physically because the trauma of being kidnapped, wandering in the middle of nowhere, and the lack of water is still weighing on his mental well being? Is Man B still responsible? Can Man A just say "Well, Man B abducted me a year ago" as a defense?

[alexqr1]

Even if we say Man B is responsible for the direction Man A walks in and what happens to Man A after being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, when does Man B's responsibility for Man A's actions end?

 

Man B's responsibility ends when he has made all reparations necessary to have Man A back in the situation he was before the abduction plus all damages incurred by Man A as a result. In this case, Man B would have to make sure Man A is back safely at the original location plus paid for all damages that came as a result of the abduction. Until then, Man B is responsible for man A.

 

Man A is not responsible for the consequences of which direction he chooses because he would not be in that position were it not for the undesired violent actions of B.

[DaVinci]

Man B's responsibility ends when he has made all reparations necessary to have Man A back in the situation he was before the abduction plus all damages incurred by Man A as a result. In this case, Man B would have to make sure Man A is back safely at the original location plus paid for all damages that came as a result of the abduction. Until then, Man B is responsible for man A. Man A is not responsible for the consequences of which direction he chooses because he would not be in that position were it not for the undesired violent actions of B.

Okay, so when Man B makes Man A whole again, but isn't this the ideal situation? What if Man B can't be found? Then we are right back to Man A being left with psychological trauma that he has to deal with if he makes it back home. We are right back to the idea that Man A, and only Man A, is responsible for his actions.

[alexqr1]

Okay, so when Man B makes Man A whole again, but isn't this the ideal situation? What if Man B can't be found? Then we are right back to Man A being left with psychological trauma that he has to deal with if he makes it back home. We are right back to the idea that Man A, and only Man A, is responsible for his actions.

 

Sure, and that psychological trauma is part of what B is responsible for and should compensate to the extent that it is possible. I don't see how Man A is responsible for that trauma, please help me understand.

[Brentb]

Responsibility is an agreement. So you determine responsibility by looking for who agreed or agrees to be responsible for something.

 

It is irresponsible to assign responsibility to an irresponsible person, and it is immoral to assign moral responsibility to an immoral person.

 

Responsibility is not the same as fault.

 

Man B is at fault for doing a terrible thing and should be stopped from doing such things in the future. That does not mean that Man A can morally allow Man B or the actions of Man B to be responsible for Man A's actions.

[DaVinci]

Responsibility is an agreement. So you determine responsibility by looking for who agreed or agrees to be responsible for something. It is irresponsible to assign responsibility to an irresponsible person, and it is immoral to assign moral responsibility to an immoral person. Responsibility is not the same as fault. Man B is at fault for doing a terrible thing and should be stopped from doing such things in the future. That does not mean that Man A can morally allow Man B or the actions of Man B to be responsible for Man A's actions.

So in the scenario I created above where Man A makes it home, but then acts out against someone in a destructive or violent way, you are saying that Man A cannot Say Man B is responsible for his actions because that would be assigning moral responsibility to someone who is immoral?

Sure, and that psychological trauma is part of what B is responsible for and should compensate to the extent that it is possible. I don't see how Man A is responsible for that trauma, please help me understand.

Man A has the ability to go to counseling, get therapy, or otherwise work through these issues. If he does not work through the issues and instead lets his trauma fester, how can we say that Man B is responsible for Man A when he acts out in a destructive or violent way?

[Brentb]

So in the scenario I created above where Man A makes it home, but then acts out against someone in a destructive or violent way, you are saying that Man A cannot Say Man B is responsible for his actions because that would be assigning moral responsibility to someone who is immoral?

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

[DaVinci]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

So then Man A is responsible for acting out against others?

[PatrickC]

Okay, so when Man B makes Man A whole again, but isn't this the ideal situation? What if Man B can't be found? Then we are right back to Man A being left with psychological trauma that he has to deal with if he makes it back home. We are right back to the idea that Man A, and only Man A, is responsible for his actions.

 

DaVinci, you've been here a fair while now fella. This is philosophy 101 and you missed by 101 yards with this question.

[Brentb]

So then Man A is responsible for acting out against others?

 

Only if Man A agrees to be responsible for his own actions. If he doesn't take responsibility for his actions, then responsible people will take responsibility for his actions by separating him from others so that he can not harm others again. 

[DaVinci]

DaVinci, you've been here a fair while now fella. This is philosophy 101 and you missed by 101 yards with this question.

Then consider this me brushing up on my knowledge of the basics of philosophy. I'm interested to hear your answer to the question. Just humor me if you would please.

[DaVinci]

Only if Man A agrees to be responsible for his own actions. If he doesn't take responsibility for his actions, then responsible people will take responsibility for his actions by separating him from others so that he can not harm others again.

What if Man A acts out only against himself? What if he only hurts himself due to his trauma and not others?

[tjt]

I was thinking earlier of a similar example, in which I was trying to think of an analogy of when responsibility shifts from the parent to the child of that parent. My analogy I came up with is:

 

You are carjacked and the perp drives you hundreds of miles from your destination. Then he suddenly pulls over, and gets out of the car and leaves you there. Then it becomes your responsibility to get back to where ever you need to be.

 

This is my analogy for taking responsibility for the dysfunction that your parents and other aspects of your childhood caused you. If you continue acting dysfunctionally, for example treating people horribly because that's how you were treated, then you're essentially driving the car in the same direction that the carjacker drove it. But if you analyze why you are prone to treating people horribly and work to reverse it, then you've taken control over the car again and you will not continue in the direction that the carjacker was driving.

 

Based on this analogy (which I came up with before ever reading this post) in combination with DaVinci's thought experiment where I'm replacing Man A with a child and Man B with the parent, are you guys saying that if someone was horribly abused as a child (the carjacker (parent) drugged him and blind folded him as in DaVinci's example) and the person is so completely lost and disoriented, then it will always remain the responsibility of his parents and he needn't take over responsibility for his own life at some point?

 

I'm just wondering, because usually around this place we call FDR, it's common belief that a person is responsible for their own behavior once they become an adult, whether or not their lives were carjacked by fucked up people as a child. Which I ascribe to believing as well.

[alexqr1]

Man A has the ability to go to counseling, get therapy, or otherwise work through these issues. If he does not work through the issues and instead lets his trauma fester, how can we say that Man B is responsible for Man A when he acts out in a destructive or violent way?

 

Do you mean if Man A refuses or prevents Man B from making reparations? Like if Man B has payed for A's therapy and yet A refuses?

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Can someone explain to me the idea of personal responsibility where other people are involved and have an influence over your life?So for example, let's say Man A is walking home when he is abducted by Man B. Man B has knocked out Man A with a chloroform soaked rag, and thrown him in the back of his trunk. When Man A wakes up he finds himself in an empty field in the middle of nowhere and Man B has disappeared. Man A has no clothes, money, or cell phone, and can't see any signs of human civilization for miles around him. So who is responsible for what happens to Man A at this point? If Man A decides to walk east to look for help instead of walking west and he dies of dehydration because there was no civilization and no water of any kind for a hundred miles to the east, but there was a town a few hours from his original position to the west that he could have made it to, who is responsible for his death? Himself because he chose to take the path east? Man B because he put Man A in this situation in the first place? Both of them?

 

 

What's going on in your life at the moment where a situation of personal responsibility is in question?

[Brentb]

What if Man A acts out only against himself? What if he only hurts himself due to his trauma and not others?

 

Hurting oneself is not immoral.

[DaVinci]

Do you mean if Man A refuses or prevents Man B from making reparations? Like if Man B has payed for A's therapy and yet A refuses?

I mean if Man B can't be found at all. Man B has completely disappeared after the initial abduction.

What's going on in your life at the moment where a situation of personal responsibility is in question?

I think tjt hits on what I am thinking about at the moment:

I was thinking earlier of a similar example, in which I was trying to think of an analogy of when responsibility shifts from the parent to the child of that parent. My analogy I came up with is: You are carjacked and the perp drives you hundreds of miles from your destination. Then he suddenly pulls over, and gets out of the car and leaves you there. Then it becomes your responsibility to get back to where ever you need to be. This is my analogy for taking responsibility for the dysfunction that your parents and other aspects of your childhood caused you. If you continue acting dysfunctionally, for example treating people horribly because that's how you were treated, then you're essentially driving the car in the same direction that the carjacker drove it. But if you analyze why you are prone to treating people horribly and work to reverse it, then you've taken control over the car again and you will not continue in the direction that the carjacker was driving. Based on this analogy (which I came up with before ever reading this post) in combination with DaVinci's thought experiment where I'm replacing Man A with a child and Man B with the parent, are you guys saying that if someone was horribly abused as a child (the carjacker (parent) drugged him and blind folded him as in DaVinci's example) and the person is so completely lost and disoriented, then it will always remain the responsibility of his parents and he needn't take over responsibility for his own life at some point? I'm just wondering, because usually around this place we call FDR, it's common belief that a person is responsible for their own behavior once they become an adult, whether or not their lives were carjacked by fucked up people as a child. Which I ascribe to believing as well.

I wondering about this too.

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Ok, so spill DaVinci.

[AustinJames]

Occasionally, it is an amusing logical experiment. To deduce the objective moral quality of each potential action and circumstance, in theory, can be satisfying.

 

More recently in my personal conversations, however, I have countered such abstractions with simple questions of application.  I ask each individual how their philosophy influences their actions, and what actions have progressed their life.

 

I don't really see how placing myself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation, and then speculating on what behavior may be thenceforth ethically justifiable is a very effective means to produce meaningful change toward a libertarian goal.

 

Rather than talking about "what if I was drugged and then raped and then my memory was erased and there were no witnesses," would it not be more meaningful to discuss the tangible oppressive forces in everyone's lives, and work to achieve the eradication of the root causes of societal violence?  Intellectuals often fall prey to the game of rationalizing radical behavior, or engaging in endless, repetitive debates concerning the moral content of some action by some hypothetical individual.

 

I ask DaVinci: what principle do you rely upon in your life to guide you in such situations, and how have you used it to your benefit?

 

Or, what decision in the context of your own life were you hoping to gain insight upon in the relation of this imaginary scenario?

 

In other words, what does this scenario have to do with anything in real life?

[DaVinci]

Occasionally, it is an amusing logical experiment. To deduce the objective moral quality of each potential action and circumstance, in theory, can be satisfying. More recently in my personal conversations, however, I have countered such abstractions with simple questions of application.  I ask each individual how their philosophy influences their actions, and what actions have progressed their life. I don't really see how placing myself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation, and then speculating on what behavior may be thenceforth ethically justifiable is a very effective means to produce meaningful change toward a libertarian goal. Rather than talking about "what if I was drugged and then raped and then my memory was erased and there were no witnesses," would it not be more meaningful to discuss the tangible oppressive forces in everyone's lives, and work to achieve the eradication of the root causes of societal violence?  Intellectuals often fall prey to the game of rationalizing radical behavior, or engaging in endless, repetitive debates concerning the moral content of some action by some hypothetical individual. I ask DaVinci: what principle do you rely upon in your life to guide you in such situations, and how have you used it to your benefit? Or, what decision in the context of your own life were you hoping to gain insight upon in the relation of this imaginary scenario? In other words, what does this scenario have to do with anything in real life?

My ultimate goal was not to have an endless debate about hypotheticals, but to see how other people respond to a point of view I hear a lot. I want to listen to how other people might respond to an approximation of a real life debate I often have with family members to get a perspective on the situation that isn't mine. A debate that often centers around personal responsibility. Tjt hit on the subject in his post. Basically, when does a child become responsible for their actions? Can a child who grew up being neglected, abused, etc, point to their place in life and say "I am 100% responsible for my life."? For example if I say to a family member that my parents neglected my education and, that if my parents had put in the effort that they should have I would probably be better off in terms of both my education and my finances, I'm bound to be met by the sentiment to "Suck it up" or "So what? Mommy and daddy didn't love you enough isn't an excuse for where you are in life."So how do you gauge where the responsibility of one person ends for putting someone into a situation, and where does the responsibility of the person put into the situation begin for getting out of said situation?

[june]

i partook in a recent discussion about this topic. i believe the problem at hand here is figuring out what constitutes a "direct" or "indirect" effect of an action, or if there is a true distinction between the two at all?the example i used -- which is not too dissimilar to yours, davinci, in its logic -- was what if a man lifted up a woman  without her consent (and thus initiated force) and placed her in a different location, and then the women was struck by lightening (this is, say, a billion-to-1 chance) and died. is the man responsible for that death? or is the man only responsible for the unconsented lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? before you answer, ponder this more likely example too: what if the man lifted and placed the woman on a highway, and the woman was struck by car (which is, say, a 2-to-1 chance). again, is the man responsible for that death, or just responsible for the lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? 

I ask DaVinci: what principle do you rely upon in your life to guide you in such situations, and how have you used it to your benefit?

i dont know about davinci, but the principle i am attempting to rely on/understand is stefan's "you own the effects of your actions" principle. as davincis hypothetical has pondered (purposefully or not*): what actually constitutes an "effect of one's actions"? how is it determined, specifically?i also want to point out that this a universal principle that has already been put forward by stefan, so it is he who has already "placed himself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation" and made a judgement on the morality of it ("you own the effects of your actions"). hypothetical examples like davinci's are merely an attempt to examine this already put-forward principle in more detail to figure out the intricacies* davinci, would you say my interpretation of what your argument represents is accurate?

[DaVinci]

i partook in a recent discussion about this topic. i believe the problem at hand here is figuring out what constitutes a "direct" or "indirect" effect of an action, or if there is a true distinction between the two at all?the example i used -- which is not too dissimilar to yours, davinci, in its logic -- was what if a man lifted up a woman  without her consent (and thus initiated force) and placed her in a different location, and then the women was struck by lightening (this is, say, a billion-to-1 chance) and died. is the man responsible for that death? or is the man only responsible for the unconsented lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? before you answer, ponder this more likely example too: what if the man lifted and placed the woman on a highway, and the woman was struck by car (which is, say, a 2-to-1 chance). again, is the man responsible for that death, or just responsible for the lifting of another person? where and how do you draw that line? i dont know about davinci, but the principle i am attempting to rely on/understand is stefan's "you own the effects of your actions" principle. as davincis hypothetical has pondered (purposefully or not*): what actually constitutes an "effect of one's actions"? how is it determined, specifically?i also want to point out that this a universal principle that has already been put forward by stefan, so it is he who has already "placed himself in an abstract, morally ambivalent situation" and made a judgement on the morality of it ("you own the effects of your actions"). hypothetical examples like davinci's are merely an attempt to examine this already put-forward principle in more detail to figure out the intricacies* davinci, would you say my interpretation of what your argument represents is accurate?

Basically, yes. My main point is essentially the title of my topic. How do you determine responsibility when other people are involved.

[alexqr1]

I mean if Man B can't be found at all. Man B has completely disappeared after the initial abduction. 

 

OK so if B is never to be found again then any discussion about his debts to A has no practical consequence.

If I take $100 from you and then fall off the face of the earth, then you may make the point all you want that I owe you $100 but that does not change anything. In an abstract moral analysis, I will forever owe you $100, but in all practical reality, that debt has no consequence, that still does not make you responsible for "losing" $100.

[American_Crow]

Responsibility can be ambiguous at times, and there are plenty of real life examples to demonstrate this. For me, the first thing that comes to mind is what tjt did - bringing it back to the parent and child relationship. I need not be abstract about it at all:

 

My mother was abused as a child. I grew up in a terrible environment. Upon reaching adulthood I made disastrous choices and ended up having a child whom I subjected to an abusive environment. My mother justified her treatment of me as being better than how she grew up. I justified my treatment of my child as being better than how I grew up. Here's how I break it down:

 

I recently learned that in order to take responsibility we must assign responsibility. I put it into practice and decided to hold my parents responsible for the environment in which they raised me. In doing so I was able to take responsibility for the way that I was raising my child. I took away my parent's justification, and in doing so my own justification fell apart. Now it is up to me to rectify the situation that I created with my own child as best as I can, and I take responsibility for doing everything that I can to ensure that the pattern does not continue into the next generation. Should my child passes into adulthood and act out in destructive ways, to what extent can I be responsible? I don't know. To what extent was my mother responsible for my passing into adulthood and making disastrous choices? In a way entirely, but in a way not at all because in the absense of anyone to help me it is still up to me to act appropriately. It took me nearly ten years to have things somewhat figured out, but by that time I had already hurt others and brought a child into the world whom I subjected to abuse. I don't feel that I get to pass that responsibility off; my family that left me in a bad way wasn't going to fix it, nor was anyone else. I have to take responsibility for that.

 

So back to the example at hand, if A is left in a bad way by B, B is responsible whether or not B can be found and made to make restitution. If A goes the wrong way and dies, it was B that put him there and B is responsible. If A makes it back to town, B is not responsible for A taking his trauma out on others. B is responsible for traumatizing A, but in the absence of restitution A must still be responsible for getting his own therapy and healing his own trauma, because if he does not and then takes it out on C, and we do not hold A responsible because of B, then do we not hold C responsible for taking it out on D because of A, ad infinitum?

[Agalloch]

How can Man B be responsible for which direction Man A walks in? Sure, Man B is responsible for taking Man A into the middle of nowhere, but after he leaves he has no control over the legs of Man A, or the voice of Man A, or the emotional state of Man A? Correct?Even if we say Man B is responsible for the direction Man A walks in and what happens to Man A after being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, when does Man B's responsibility for Man A's actions end? Let's say Man A makes it to civilization, finds help and makes it back home, but a year later Man A is not over the trauma of this event and acts out in a destructive way against someone else? What if he damages property or assaults someone physically because the trauma of being kidnapped, wandering in the middle of nowhere, and the lack of water is still weighing on his mental well being? Is Man B still responsible? Can Man A just say "Well, Man B abducted me a year ago" as a defense?

Apologies for not responding sooner, and if I go over old ground in responing to such an early post. However, having read through the topic, it doesn't seem to have progressed.

 

Remove Man B from the situation. Would Man A still choose the same starting location and bearing for this walk into dehydration? I doubt very much that Man A would thrust himself into the middle of nowhere with no idea in which direction his salvation lies (sp. lays?, lay?). Would he even consider acting out a comparable situation? Doubtful. I believe the secret to determining responsibility when other people are involved is to remove the other people and see how it modifies someone's behaviour.

 

I also think it's worth considering what you mean by "responsible". I have assumed so far that it is synonymous with moral responsibility, or culpability. Man B clearly acts immorally in the first place, putting all further acts under moral consideration. At the core of morality, there is choice. If there is no choice, there is no moral analysis and heavily involved in defining choice is the oppertunity or faculty to gain knowledge about a situation. I don't believe someone has to have perfect knowledge for something to be a choice, but when the oppertunity to gain the information necessary to make an informed choice is forcefully removed, then choice is removed.

 

In this situation, by placing Man A in the middle of nowhere, Man B has removed Man A's ability to determine the best direction in which to travel. "middle of nowhere" implies no prior knowedge of the area that he has been left in and therefore which direction he walks in isn't really a choice, it's a random occurence as a result of Man B's immoral choices.

 

Also, to simplify. Man B also removed the choice of Man A to not travel in a desperate quest to save his life, his choice to do whatever he had planned for that time. Man A was unlikely to choose being in the middle of nowhere, so further choices seem unlikely to be his.

 

Interestingly though, there are still areas of moral culpability for Man A. I don't think he can find the nearest town, and then engage in a killing spree, without holding some moral culpability fo his own. Of course, Man B would also be morally culpable for inserting this maniac near the town.