Society/Culture Are we responsible for our actions? And what is the implication for society?

[Seeds]

To be responsible for our actions means that we should be held accountable for them. If we are responsible for our actions then we should be punished if those actions are criminal and we should reap the rewards of our work, effort and talent. But are we responsible for our actions?

Historically, the notion of human responsibility wasn't questioned. We were assumed responsible for our actions because we have free will. Free will was undisputed. However, the realisation that our conscious mind is a purely physical construct consisting of numerous algorithms that are created by our genes and heavily influenced by stimuli from our environment has largely squashed the idea that our desires, values, fears and talents are freely chosen. Humans are simply pre programmed biological robots. And if humans cant choose what their desires, talents, fears and values are then should they be held accountable for any of the actions that result from them?

Should a professional basketballer reap millions of dollars if both their natural talent and the hard work they put into maximising their talent is simply a function of their genes and living in an environment that enabled them the spare time and resources to invest in their talents?

Should a person who grows up in poverty with untreated extreme adhd that prevents them from being able to concentrate and hold down a job be held responsible if they rob a house to help provide resources to feed their family? Or rob a house simply to satisfy a drug addiction?

Should a person with time blindness be responsible for rocking up to work late on a regular basis? Time blindness wasnt their fault after all.

Should a person with an inbuilt fear of other races be condemed for being racist?

Does this realisation that humans desires, values, fears and talents are not freely choosen completely change the way we should run our society? As an example, if we arent responsible for our talent and effort shouldnt all above average wealth earned through talent and effort be redistributed leading to equal outcome? Shouldnt all punishment be abolished? If you do agree that we should not be held responsible then how do our societies even function? What does it even mean to be human without responsibility?

Or do we have responsibility for some things but not others? If so how do you justify differentiating the two given all actions can be reduced down to a set of algorithms created by genes and influenced by our environment?

Or do you still think we are responsible for all our actions? Can we somehow be responsible without free will? Or do we still actually have free will despite how our will is created and comes into being?

What do you think?

 

[Carringbush2010]

To be responsible for our actions means that we should be held accountable for them.

Agreed, but 'accountable', what is your opinion of what the 'account' should be?

But are we responsible for our actions?

Subject to opinion, especially in a liberal democracy

Should a professional basketballer reap millions of dollars if both their natural talent and the hard work they put into maximising their talent is simply a function of their genes and living in an environment that enabled them the spare time and resources to invest in their talents?

Well, yes because their talents and what they provide are valued, whether or not one considers their product or talent should be valued is irrelevant.

The masses (majority) value many things that one may consider frivolous, you could reel off many many sports, anything from Australian football to motocross, both of which pay eye watering contracts / wages to the talented participants.

Should a person with time blindness be responsible for rocking up to work late on a regular basis? Time blindness wasnt their fault after all.

Someone with time blindness is not widespread, certainly a minucule minority.

Should a person with an inbuilt fear of other races be condemed for being racist?

Again, a minuscule minority unless you buy into msm and social media that tells you that most of Jan and Joe public have a phobia about other 'races', which would be absurd.

Also, when you talk about 'punishment', are you actually talking about 'deterrent'?

I must say this is certainly one strange question / thread. What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[barreness]

Seeds discovers the deterministic universe hypothesis and becomes socialist, this was perhaps the best possible outcome here ladies and gentlemen.

To quote the bible of our times, 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it'

 

[Gethelred]

This is all very... biological essentialist of you, Seeds.

 

[SeaOfFire]

Happiness that I found this thread....sadness that it isn't awash with ideas and posters.

Nevertheless.....

I think, firstly, that we must clarify the definition of free will.

We don't have free will, in the sense of absolute freedom. We cannot, for example, will ourselves to fly like a bird, or dive to ocean depths like whale.

We do, however, have free agency. To use the previous examples, we can build planes and submarines which allow us the agency to explore and survive those spheres. But these are not free. They have costs, be that in money (economic cost), temporal (time), environmental (materials) and so forth.

It is true that we are conditioned from the day of birth by the society we live in. Some are born with more innate agency to perform feats or undertake actions that others cannot. A vast number of those however, are learned skills which can be acquired by anybody to some degree - whether I can be trained to run faster than Usain Bolt is another question. But, given that the human body is extremely adaptable and malleable, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

When we get into the responsibility for your actions, then the individual is less of a focus than the society. We don't live in a vacuum. Everything we do is action and reaction. It is obvious that when I do something which does affect others, such as driving my car, then to ensure every other driver knows what I am likely to do I must become predictable. And part of that predictability is adhering to the accepted norms, whatever they may be (it is for this reason that I refuse to drive in urban areas in Thailand for example....it is mayhem to my eyes).

Given that my actions produce reactions, then I must be held accountable for those reactions, for if I didn't institute the action, then there would logically not be a reaction produced from that.

For those whose genetics otherwise limit their options in any particular arena, then again we have the agency to account for that. Some people require mobility aids, others require vision assistance etc.

Beliefs are a function of knowledge - thus, a racist can be educated away from racism. Those with adhd (to use your example) can be medicated (sometimes) but can also be taught to manage themselves and can have others assist in that management.

Humans, from an evolutionary perspective, are wired in a vast number of ways. Our survival instincts generally remain the governing force, they underpin almost everything we do. Thus, if I have something rare, and that has value to others, I can be said to possess something valuable. To use the example of the sportsperson, this allows my survival instinct around providing the vittles of life (food, clothing, shelter) to form the basis for wealth creation. And in the way of humanity, if many people wish to pay money to see me play, then that skill becomes increasingly valuable. When we make it about possession of a commodity (say, gold) as opposed to a skill or biological endowment, then likewise, a group of humans will naturally form a market around that commodity that they consider valuable for whatever reason.

Nothing, at all, ever, for any organism in any environment, is free. To gain one thing, you must first sacrifice something else. This is as true of the bird (ducks can fly, and go underwater, and can walk on the land.....but they cannot be said to have the same aquatic ability as a fish nor the terrestrial agility of a mountain goat) as it is of the human.

Thus, to have a functioning society, some freedoms, some options, must in turn be sacrificed so that everyone has space to live with similar free agency.

It is our differences across this spectrum of free agency that binds a society together. If everyone was equally endowed with identical agency, then the resulting homogenisation of that society would see it stagnate and fail.

 

[liz]

I don’t think “free” in this context relates to costs but rather to constraints. As you point out, we can’t simply decide to do things that we are physically not equipped to do, like fly.

But there are other, less visible ways in which we are constrained. Our individual blueprints start with our genetics but the totality of our experiences interacts with our genetics to create who we are at a single point in time. That changes from moment to moment as we accumulate more experiences, read new things, have different thought, follow (or fight) a habit we have fallen into. Every time our neurons fire there are physical changes that occur at the synaptic level that make those neurons more or less likely to fire in the future in response to other neurons firing in certain patterns. In most cases it is not completely beyond our power to override those patterns but we have to do something to somehow cause other patterns of neurons to fire - that is our agency. We have it but it is constrained.

In the sphere of the law we do recognise some constraints to individuals’ agency, most notably in the case of reduced mental capacity. That can arise from brain injury, disease or even short term factors like extreme stress. We don’t hold people to account for their actions in the same way as if they can’t demonstrate reduced mental capacity.

It becomes a bit greyer when you get to psychopathy/sociopathy? Should it? Maybe those are alternate forms of reduced mental capacity but we don’t, as a society, view them in the way we do, say, schizophrenia.

Sorry, that was a bit of an unstructured ramble as I lie trying to fall asleep. I won’t venture into the realm of the strong version of determinism. Not tonight, anyway.

 

[SeaOfFire]

I don’t think “free” in this context relates to costs but rather to constraints. As you point out, we can’t simply decide to do things that we are physically not equipped to do, like fly.

But there are other, less visible ways in which we are constrained. Our individual blueprints start with our genetics but the totality of our experiences interacts with our genetics to create who we are at a single point in time. That changes from moment to moment as we accumulate more experiences, read new things, have different thought, follow (or fight) a habit we have fallen into. Every time our neurons fire there are physical changes that occur at the synaptic level that make those neurons more or less likely to fire in the future in response to other neurons firing in certain patterns. In most cases it is not completely beyond our power to override those patterns but we have to do something to somehow cause other patterns of neurons to fire - that is our agency. We have it but it is constrained.

In the sphere of the law we do recognise some constraints to individuals’ agency, most notably in the case of reduced mental capacity. That can arise from brain injury, disease or even short term factors like extreme stress. We don’t hold people to account for their actions in the same way as if they can’t demonstrate reduced mental capacity.

It becomes a bit greyer when you get to psychopathy/sociopathy? Should it? Maybe those are alternate forms of reduced mental capacity but we don’t, as a society, view them in the way we do, say, schizophrenia.

Sorry, that was a bit of an unstructured ramble as I lie trying to fall asleep. I won’t venture into the realm of the strong version of determinism. Not tonight, anyway.

Referring specifically to the paragraph regarding the sphere of law, the broader issue here for me becomes the avenues to abrogate personal responsibility - my usual bugbear here is alcohol.

Whilst it is generally true that being drunk doesn't absolve someone of civil or criminal liability, what it has done is create a culture in which the publicans have become guardians of inebriation, as they have previously been successfully litigated which has led to the creation of an entire business ecosystem around RSA.

I see this as an affront, to both the individuals choice to continue drinking and to the ridiculous cost et al borne now by holders of alcohol licenses.

Humans often (or even always) seek the path of least resistance and if they can find a way to make a legal case that someone else is responsible, they surely will. This feeds back into the free will/free agency argument, namely....if you CHOOSE to drink 100 beers and die, or kill someone else, then the source of those beers (ie, the pub or bar) shouldn't be responsible in any way, shape or form. Providing you are legally entitled to drink, then go your hardest. The usual caveats around anti-social behaviour et al naturally still apply. It is the "after I left the pub" stage that concerns me the most on this issue.

We accept, that to have a functional society, that there are rules to be followed which impinge upon our agency/desires. But to bring those rules to bear against another's endeavours in some (not all) cases is more akin to creating unnecessary bureaucracy than any firm desire to make things more safe.The logical extension of making rules and regulations under the banner of safety is that all liberties which can be construed as potentially dangerous should be removed - which is patently ridiculous.

 

[kranky al]

 

[Seeds]

Referring specifically to the paragraph regarding the sphere of law, the broader issue here for me becomes the avenues to abrogate personal responsibility - my usual bugbear here is alcohol.

Whilst it is generally true that being drunk doesn't absolve someone of civil or criminal liability, what it has done is create a culture in which the publicans have become guardians of inebriation, as they have previously been successfully litigated which has led to the creation of an entire business ecosystem around RSA.

I see this as an affront, to both the individuals choice to continue drinking and to the ridiculous cost et al borne now by holders of alcohol licenses.

Humans often (or even always) seek the path of least resistance and if they can find a way to make a legal case that someone else is responsible, they surely will. This feeds back into the free will/free agency argument, namely....if you CHOOSE to drink 100 beers and die, or kill someone else, then the source of those beers (ie, the pub or bar) shouldn't be responsible in any way, shape or form. Providing you are legally entitled to drink, then go your hardest. The usual caveats around anti-social behaviour et al naturally still apply. It is the "after I left the pub" stage that concerns me the most on this issue.

We accept, that to have a functional society, that there are rules to be followed which impinge upon our agency/desires. But to bring those rules to bear against another's endeavours in some (not all) cases is more akin to creating unnecessary bureaucracy than any firm desire to make things more safe.The logical extension of making rules and regulations under the banner of safety is that all liberties which can be construed as potentially dangerous should be removed - which is patently ridiculous.

I agree with this but we should note that consumers should be responsible for their actions as long as they are informed about the products/services they are purchasing and it's implications. As an extreme example if you purchase a drink which has poison in it and aren't informed about it then the consumer is not responsible in any shape or form.

But outside this I fully agree. The products available to consumers has been reduced (or the price increased) by the overburden of responsibility the legal system places upon the producer. This is particularly noticeable for services where there is a possibility of hurting oneself through an accident or neglect on the behalf of the consumer.

 

[Seeds]

View attachment 2227426

Whilst I believe our tax system should be structured in a way so no one becomes a billionaire not all billionaires are exploiting people. Some have created new things that greatly benefit humanity and help lives. They get paid too much for it but their contribution can be greatly beneficial. Not all billionaires. Some also are indeed grifters who suck massive rents from society that they have not earned. But not all.

 

[JustaBattler]

Happiness that I found this thread....sadness that it isn't awash with ideas and posters.

Nevertheless.....

I think, firstly, that we must clarify the definition of free will.

We don't have free will, in the sense of absolute freedom. We cannot, for example, will ourselves to fly like a bird, or dive to ocean depths like whale.

We do, however, have free agency. To use the previous examples, we can build planes and submarines which allow us the agency to explore and survive those spheres. But these are not free. They have costs, be that in money (economic cost), temporal (time), environmental (materials) and so forth.

It is true that we are conditioned from the day of birth by the society we live in. Some are born with more innate agency to perform feats or undertake actions that others cannot. A vast number of those however, are learned skills which can be acquired by anybody to some degree - whether I can be trained to run faster than Usain Bolt is another question. But, given that the human body is extremely adaptable and malleable, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

When we get into the responsibility for your actions, then the individual is less of a focus than the society. We don't live in a vacuum. Everything we do is action and reaction. It is obvious that when I do something which does affect others, such as driving my car, then to ensure every other driver knows what I am likely to do I must become predictable. And part of that predictability is adhering to the accepted norms, whatever they may be (it is for this reason that I refuse to drive in urban areas in Thailand for example....it is mayhem to my eyes).

Given that my actions produce reactions, then I must be held accountable for those reactions, for if I didn't institute the action, then there would logically not be a reaction produced from that.

For those whose genetics otherwise limit their options in any particular arena, then again we have the agency to account for that. Some people require mobility aids, others require vision assistance etc.

Beliefs are a function of knowledge - thus, a racist can be educated away from racism. Those with adhd (to use your example) can be medicated (sometimes) but can also be taught to manage themselves and can have others assist in that management.

Humans, from an evolutionary perspective, are wired in a vast number of ways. Our survival instincts generally remain the governing force, they underpin almost everything we do. Thus, if I have something rare, and that has value to others, I can be said to possess something valuable. To use the example of the sportsperson, this allows my survival instinct around providing the vittles of life (food, clothing, shelter) to form the basis for wealth creation. And in the way of humanity, if many people wish to pay money to see me play, then that skill becomes increasingly valuable. When we make it about possession of a commodity (say, gold) as opposed to a skill or biological endowment, then likewise, a group of humans will naturally form a market around that commodity that they consider valuable for whatever reason.

Nothing, at all, ever, for any organism in any environment, is free. To gain one thing, you must first sacrifice something else. This is as true of the bird (ducks can fly, and go underwater, and can walk on the land.....but they cannot be said to have the same aquatic ability as a fish nor the terrestrial agility of a mountain goat) as it is of the human.

Thus, to have a functioning society, some freedoms, some options, must in turn be sacrificed so that everyone has space to live with similar free agency.

It is our differences across this spectrum of free agency that binds a society together. If everyone was equally endowed with identical agency, then the resulting homogenisation of that society would see it stagnate and fail.

A neat argument for the logic of market clearing mechanisms - however, I must say that the bolded last sentence whilst interesting seems to hang in the air -I'm not so sure that the posited utopia of a theoretical equality across all dimensions is a doom by definition. Struggle is ordained paradise is a promise.