Responsibility

[Meshavrischika]

At what point does responsibility for ones self and circumstances begin (and end)?

I hear people say "blah company did this and this and this to workers".... but didnt' the worker accept the job? Or are they a victim of circumstance and therefore is there a moral or ethical obligation of the employer to "do better" for them?

This is just an example.

I find that many people like to offload responsibility for their lives on others... while I subscribe to the idea that I am largely (if not totally) responsible for everything that happens in my life, and even with a literal gun to my head, the choice is still mine to make (and consequences to accept)...

Anyway... where is the line? is there a line? what makes something more one person's fault than another?

 

[Domenico]

Well, when you have a choice where none of the outcomes are desirable, you can't really be held responsible for crappiness that arises from that decision.

For example, you could have a choice to take a job that is highly dangerous and pays you thirteen cents an hour, or you could choose not to take the job, and starve to death. You're going to take the job, because it will keep you alive (albeit in misery) for slightly longer.

 

[Crazy Liz]

At what point does responsibility for ones self and circumstances begin (and end)?

I hear people say "blah company did this and this and this to workers".... but didnt' the worker accept the job? Or are they a victim of circumstance and therefore is there a moral or ethical obligation of the employer to "do better" for them?

This is just an example.

I find that many people like to offload responsibility for their lives on others... while I subscribe to the idea that I am largely (if not totally) responsible for everything that happens in my life, and even with a literal gun to my head, the choice is still mine to make (and consequences to accept)...

Doesn't the person holding the gun to your head also bear some responsibility for what you do in that situation?

Anyway... where is the line? is there a line? what makes something more one person's fault than another?

What do you mean by a line?

Why is it important to determine who is more at fault than someone else? As I see it, relative fault might have something to do with blame, but not with responsibility.

 

[wanderingone]

At what point does responsibility for ones self and circumstances begin (and end)?

I hear people say "blah company did this and this and this to workers".... but didnt' the worker accept the job? Or are they a victim of circumstance and therefore is there a moral or ethical obligation of the employer to "do better" for them?

This is just an example.

I find that many people like to offload responsibility for their lives on others... while I subscribe to the idea that I am largely (if not totally) responsible for everything that happens in my life, and even with a literal gun to my head, the choice is still mine to make (and consequences to accept)...

Anyway... where is the line? is there a line? what makes something more one person's fault than another?

So... if I take a job at "We didn't know that substance was REALLY not safe factory" and develop some odd cancer along with 40 other workers the cancer is my responsibility because I shouldn't have accepted that the employer was telling the truth about the substances I was going to be working with?

If I am assaulted as I walk home from the bus stop do I bear the responsibility for that assault? If not does that mean if I am not able to thwart my attacker and avoid fatal wounds that I am ultimately responsible for my own death because I didn't find a way to turn the tide on my attacker?

There is no specific line in my opinion. Each situation we are presented with creates a situation where we have to meet our own obligations within the context of that situation.

meh.. I'm a Christian.. I have the ultimate lack of personal responsibility, the belief that Christ takes on all of my failings.

 

[quatona]

At what point does responsibility for ones self and circumstances begin (and end)?

And what does "responsibility for one´s self" even mean, in the first place?

I hear people say "blah company did this and this and this to workers".... but didnt' the worker accept the job? Or are they a victim of circumstance and therefore is there a moral or ethical obligation of the employer to "do better" for them?

I think power does come with moral and ethical obligations.

I find that many people like to offload responsibility for their lives on others... while I subscribe to the idea that I am largely (if not totally) responsible for everything that happens in my life, and even with a literal gun to my head, the choice is still mine to make (and consequences to accept)...

So, again: What does "I am responsible" mean, practically?
In the scenario where someone holds a gun to your head and says "either you X...or I´ll shoot you" - what implications follow from the notion "I am responsible for doing X" and which implications follow from "I am not responsible for doing X"?
Do you see any difference between going up to a person and saying "You seem to be in need of money. Here, have my wallet!" and giving your wallet to someone who points a gun at your head and says "Give me your wallet or...!"? Or can the gun-pointing part simply be ignored when contemplating on the scenario?

Anyway... where is the line? is there a line? what makes something more one person's fault than another?

Well, life is complicated and complex.
Apart from the fact that I see not much point in constituting something "the fault of someone" anyways, people do not do what they do in isolation from the facts and conditions.
The dilemma of having no money or being dead (and both being "my fault" in the end) is inconvenient, to put it mildly. I feel that the fact that someone intentionally created this dilemma for me deserves mentioning and consideration as a relevant factor in the scenario.

 

[cantata]

Often, those who suffer most at the hands of such-and-such-a-company are those who do not have the option not to have a miserable job.

Oh yes, sweatshop worker in developing country - it's your responsibility that you lost a hand in a machine at the dangerous factory you work in, because you could have chosen not to work for Corporation Inc. and starved to death instead...

 

[Meshavrischika]

ya'll are focusing too much on the job example, and not enough on the base concept I was trying to explore. sigh.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Well, when you have a choice where none of the outcomes are desirable, you can't really be held responsible for crappiness that arises from that decision.

For example, you could have a choice to take a job that is highly dangerous and pays you thirteen cents an hour, or you could choose not to take the job, and starve to death. You're going to take the job, because it will keep you alive (albeit in misery) for slightly longer.

but you agree that the choice is still yours ultimately regardless of what others do?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Well, when you have a choice where none of the outcomes are desirable, you can't really be held responsible for crappiness that arises from that decision.

For example, you could have a choice to take a job that is highly dangerous and pays you thirteen cents an hour, or you could choose not to take the job, and starve to death. You're going to take the job, because it will keep you alive (albeit in misery) for slightly longer.

but you agree that the choice is still yours ultimately regardless of what others do?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Often, those who suffer most at the hands of such-and-such-a-company are those who do not have the option not to have a miserable job.

Oh yes, sweatshop worker in developing country - it's your responsibility that you lost a hand in a machine at the dangerous factory you work in, because you could have chosen not to work for Corporation Inc. and starved to death instead...

I appreciate that people may FEEL they have no choice... I'm just asserting no matter how crappy the outcome, we HAVE CHOICE. Like say... in Nazi Germany. Sure, harboring Jews could have meant death (and did for some) but people did it. They made the choice to look the gun face forward and said "this is more important to me".

 

[Meshavrischika]

Doesn't the person holding the gun to your head also bear some responsibility for what you do in that situation?



What do you mean by a line?

Why is it important to determine who is more at fault than someone else? As I see it, relative fault might have something to do with blame, but not with responsibility.

not really. it could just as easily be an animal as well. say.. you can face the wolf who wants to eat you, or jump off the cliff and possibly drown. is that more "responsibility neutral"?

 

[cantata]

I appreciate that people may FEEL they have no choice... I'm just asserting no matter how crappy the outcome, we HAVE CHOICE. Like say... in Nazi Germany. Sure, harboring Jews could have meant death (and did for some) but people did it. They made the choice to look the gun face forward and said "this is more important to me".

The difference, of course, is that there's nothing unethical about working in a miserable job and being paid a pittance instead of starving to death. In fact, it's probably the most ethical choice for most workers, since many of them have as many as six or seven people depending on their income. Their choice to work in the dangerous factory, where anyone attempting to form a union will, at best, be fired, and at worst, 'disposed of', is actually equivalent to the decision to harbour Jews in your example - it is the dangerous but most ethical path.

Yes, of course they have a choice - but it is not a choice that anyone with a conscience would force someone to make. Exploiting people because they are desperate is highly unethical, just as murdering people who attempt to save others from murder is highly unethical.

I really don't see what your point is. Most people who suffer at the hands of such-and-such a company are faced with a Hobson's choice. What do you mean by 'personal responsibility'? That there's no such thing as a victim of circumstance? That's a very cold way of looking at the world.

The benefit of course is that such a view of humanity and responsibility can absolve you of all sorts of responsibilities towards those less fortunate than yourself. Why worry about the people who make your clothes? It's their choice to work there, after all. Why worry about battered wives? They could just leave, couldn't they? And as for those homeless people - well, they could just get a job. In a dangerous factory, maybe! Er...

 

[Meshavrischika]

The difference, of course, is that there's nothing unethical about working in a miserable job and being paid a pittance instead of starving to death. In fact, it's probably the most ethical choice for most workers, since many of them have as many as six or seven people depending on their income. Their choice to work in the dangerous factory, where anyone attempting to form a union will, at best, be fired, and at worst, 'disposed of', is actually equivalent to the decision to harbour Jews in your example - it is the dangerous but most ethical path.

Yes, of course they have a choice - but it is not a choice that anyone with a conscience would force someone to make. Exploiting people because they are desperate is highly unethical, just as murdering people who attempt to save others from murder is highly unethical.

I really don't see what your point is. Most people who suffer at the hands of such-and-such a company are faced with a Hobson's choice. What do you mean by 'personal responsibility'? That there's no such thing as a victim of circumstance? That's a very cold way of looking at the world.

The benefit of course is that such a view of humanity and responsibility can absolve you of all sorts of responsibilities towards those less fortunate than yourself. Why worry about the people who make your clothes? It's their choice to work there, after all. Why worry about battered wives? They could just leave, couldn't they? And as for those homeless people - well, they could just get a job. In a dangerous factory, maybe! Er...

I'm not advocating exploitation. I'm just saying ultimately we ALL have a choice, regardless of what is presented. I hate that "I had no choice" thing. You did. You made a decision (even if you chose not to choose).

 

[wanderingone]

ya'll are focusing too much on the job example, and not enough on the base concept I was trying to explore. sigh.

No actually it's just using the scenarios you suggested to further explore the notion that there can be a specific line. We don't live individual, independent lives. No matter how much some people like to claim they are "self-made" and nobody helped or hindered their progress.

I truly don't believe there is a one size fits all personal responsibility description.

The consequences of the choices I make, and the responsibility for those consequences are limited, or expanded by the context under which the choice had to be made. Of course I have to live with the consequences no matter what.. that doesn't make it okay to have a darwinist view of the world (which is where this type of discussion often leads) - in other words... the strong survive and the weak have to live with the consequences of not lifting weights for long enough to have developed the power punch.

If I smother an infant to death in an attempt to quiet its cries while hiding with 100 other people from an invading force do I bear the same responsibility for that as if I smother an infant to death because I couldn't take the screaming anymore and put a pillow over its head in an attempt to quiet it?

In either situation the infant is dead, in either situation I would be the person who caused the death, in either situation it wasn't my intent to cause the death.

In the situation where I and others are trying to escape the responsiblity for the infants death lies at least partially if not completely with the invading army. In the situation where I am frustrated by the screams of the infant I'd say the responsibility lies with me. There is a difference between an action that occurs while trying to survive and trying to save the lives of others, and the an action taken due to personal frustration.

 

[Meshavrischika]

No actually it's just using the scenarios you suggested to further explore the notion that there can be a specific line. We don't live individual, independent lives. No matter how much some people like to claim they are "self-made" and nobody helped or hindered their progress.

I truly don't believe there is a one size fits all personal responsibility description.

The consequences of the choices I make, and the responsibility for those consequences are limited, or expanded by the context under which the choice had to be made. Of course I have to live with the consequences no matter what.. that doesn't make it okay to have a darwinist view of the world (which is where this type of discussion often leads) - in other words... the strong survive and the weak have to live with the consequences of not lifting weights for long enough to have developed the power punch.

If I smother an infant to death in an attempt to quiet its cries while hiding with 100 other people from an invading force do I bear the same responsibility for that as if I smother an infant to death because I couldn't take the screaming anymore and put a pillow over its head in an attempt to quiet it?

In either situation the infant is dead, in either situation I would be the person who caused the death, in either situation it wasn't my intent to cause the death.

In the situation where I and others are trying to escape the responsiblity for the infants death lies at least partially if not completely with the invading army. In the situation where I am frustrated by the screams of the infant I'd say the responsibility lies with me. There is a difference between an action that occurs while trying to survive and trying to save the lives of others, and the an action taken due to personal frustration.

extenuating circumstance does not change responsibility (the smothering baby thing).

 

[wanderingone]

I'm not advocating exploitation. I'm just saying ultimately we ALL have a choice, regardless of what is presented. I hate that "I had no choice" thing. You did. You made a decision (even if you chose not to choose).

Why do you hate the I had no choice thing? Granted there are people who abuse the notion that they are not responsible for something they have done, at the same time there really are times when the notion that people always have a choice is something only those who are either aggravated that nobody helped them avoid certain "consequences" or they can not identify with the difficulties of the "catch-22" type situations.

Is it better to say "None of my choices would have led to a satisfactory resolution of events?" or "I had limited choices and none of them were good ones"

 

[wanderingone]

extenuating circumstance does not change responsibility (the smothering baby thing).

Well that's ridiculous really. Of course the circumstances change the responsibility and the available choices.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Well that's ridiculous really. Of course the circumstances change the responsibility and the available choices.

the extenuating circumstance would change the punishment but not the responsibility. different.
you are responsible for putting your hand over the mouth and causing death in either case. whether that deserves punishment is what is debatable... not whether you did it or had a choice in it.

 

[wanderingone]

the extenuating circumstance would change the punishment but not the responsibility. different.
you are responsible for putting your hand over the mouth and causing death in either case. whether that deserves punishment is what is debatable... not whether you did it or had a choice in it.

You have a different concept of "responsibility" than I do.
The responsibility lies with all who created the circumstances that led to the death of that infant. The "choices" are different. A crying infant in the safety of their crib is just a crying a infant. A crying infant in a hidden room is an invitation to murderers.

Either way the reaction... to try to stop the infant from crying or not is the first choice, how to do it the next, the fact that the result is the same doesn't change the fact that in the first example the choice to stop the crying or not has the limited potential of saving everyone-- in the 2nd example the choice is a matter of personal convenience. Allowing the infant to cry (assuming all needs were met) does not result in anything but irritation.

In the first place the lack of an invading army would place the mother and child in the same situation as the 2nd example. There is responsibility on the part of those who created the situation.

 

[quatona]

I'm not advocating exploitation. I'm just saying ultimately we ALL have a choice, regardless of what is presented. I hate that "I had no choice" thing. You did. You made a decision (even if you chose not to choose).

"You had a choice" doesn´t tell me anything if you use it that broadly.
When asked to consider a particular "choice" of a person, it appears to be important to know which "choices" were actually available, and with which consequences the available alternative "choices" would have come.