The Responsibility of Man

[Einherjar86]

Lately, I've been considering the moral responsibilities of human beings in their respective stratum of authority.

Are all men responsible for their own actions; or does obediance absolve us from blame?

If we realize that our president, military commander, boss, or parent is doing something that we perceive to be morally wrong, is it our responsibility to "break ranks" and disobey them? Or is it our duty to obey? If we do obey, will the responsibility be placed on the soul of the individual whom we obeyed? Furthermore, will whatever moral judgment system that awaits us in the afterlife forgive us our own actions if we were acting dutifully and obediantly? Or are we judged by the actions of our own hand? Must we accept that we all have a place in the social and cosmic hierarchy? Or are we each independent? If people are indeed independent and responsible for their own actions, and choose instead to obey the immoral commands of their superior because they are uncertain of their ultimate fate or purpose, can they be forgiven by the greater moral judgment system (is there even such a system governing the universe)?

[Seditious]

there is no metaphysical moral responsibility. we are accountable to those to whom we are made accountable, whether influenza, tigers, ex-girlfriends, governments, whatever. All else is to be walked all over or neglected as we please.

[razoredge]

I understand what you are asking but there are so many forces. I've only had these issues involving work and puppet masters. With jobs I have walked if it concerned something I didnt want involvement with. With puppet masters I feel so long as I keep poking at them and live by higher laws than the written law Im doing the right thing. My father was a good man so I had no challenge there, though we did not see eye to eye on many things, it did not compromise either of us. Government itself is a tuff thing and the best example I can come up with as an American is Vietnam. Few agreed with it or saw the sense of it but they still did what they were there for. No they are not accountable for that. I choose to live where I did not jeopardize anyone and would take full accountability for my faults and mistakes. Those that have tread on me have been held accountable. I dont worry about the afterlife only living with myself.

[Blowtus]

If we are to start viewing individuals as not responsible for their actions that they willingly choose, I think we completely undermine any notion of responsibility, negating any use of the term. It may be argued that individuals choices occur as a result of x (ie abuse as a child, patriotism, whatever) but responsibility for such choices must still rest with the individual. Were it otherwise, all power and capacity is effectively removed from the realm of the individual, with us simply as pinballs in the great universal machine. Whether, in some attempted 'objective' sense we are just such pinballs, seems irrelevant to the subjective determination not to accept such a state as valid.

Determinations of 'duty' are in themselves entirely 'chosen', to mitigate responsibility because of such is basic short sightedness.

In some sense I think when duty to a larger cause is elected, it is coherent to take on board the entire cause in ones assessment of actions. (This is however not just an 'ends justify the means' statement, the means are still a part of the ends) Lawyers commit themselves to this sort of notion - though they may defend those they believe are culpable and worthy of punishment, a commitment to a greater system, (an idealised notion of the world, but still a useful illustration imho) that of a justice system, and proceeding in a manner that furthers the ends of that system, renders individual failings in the system (ie, wrong verdict / punishment) acceptable. In this sense I think it is the entire commitment to the cause / system that would require questioning, not individual elements.

I agree with Seditious that any sort of 'objective morality' stuff is rubbish, but I don't think that should necessarily limit those actions we wish to perform in the name of what we think is 'good and valuable'.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

but I don't think that should necessarily limit those actions we wish to perform in the name of what we think is 'good and valuable'.

unless applying a naively narrow use of the word 'good' which I'd reject, I'd have to disagree.

do any cases come to mind for a 'not necessarily when...'?

[Blowtus]

I think either the syntax of your q is confusing me, or I confused you. The situation that comes to mind for performing actions we find to be 'good and valuable' would be life itself...

[Einherjar86]

I think he's trying to understand your definition of "good." You said "I don't think that should necessarily limit those actions we wish to perform in the name of what we think is 'good and valuable.'" So, in what situation would you limit those actions, and in what situation wouldn't you?

[Blowtus]

I wouldn't limit those actions.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

I think either the syntax of your q is confusing me, or I confused you. The situation that comes to mind for performing actions we find to be 'good and valuable' would be life itself...

let me clarify how I understood it

Without the standard of limiting our conduct to 'what is morally good' we may naturally come to the hypothesis of limiting it to just 'what is good'. You suggest perhaps that isn't necessarily so---we might choose to do actions which aren't good and valuable in some cases.

I'm doubting this is the case, so long as a sufficiently mindful use of the idea "good" is applied. To be short-sighted, one might say 'injury is bad, sport can cause injury, if we're to necessarily limit ourselves to only the good and valuable, we will no longer play sport'. To this I think it's obvious we see potential bads as mere 'means' the bad of which is conceived to be satisfactorally negated by the 'end' of fun/fitness/whatever.

so I'm curious as to (since definitions are such a bitch, and examples easier) what might be a time when we wouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to what we think is good or valuable, but act to do the detrimental. I'm curious whether that label can't be invalidated by a broadening of the concept of good which appreciates, essentially, the dentist's drill is not 'bad'.

We tend to agree on these sorts of things a lot, that's why I'm curious if you had something in mind as an exception, or were perhaps just being cautious with your statements.

[razoredge]

what are you two talking about ? A sane person knows what is morally right and what is not. About the only deviation from this I can think of in which a person may have no control is unjustified war imposed by their governments.

The line between right and wrong does not wobble. Causing undo harm to others = wrong

[OldScratch]

Originally Posted by razoredge

what are you two talking about ? A sane person knows what is morally right and what is not. About the only deviation from this I can think of in which a person may have no control is unjustified war imposed by their governments.

The line between right and wrong does not wobble. Causing undo harm to others = wrong

Indeed, what are YOU talking about? "Right and wrong" according to whom or what pray tell? What harm is due - what is undue? And who decides that? And what on earth is an "unjustified" war as opposed to one presumably justified, objectively speaking? All these ideas are relative - and it has nothing to do with sanity or the lack thereof.<