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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[wildfyr]

^ Are you trying to defend causing (undo) harm to others?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, OldScratch got it. The line between right and wrong wobbles all the time. Some might claim there is no such line. Although I'm sure Seditious does indeed follow some moral guideline (whether only because of the law, or whatever, ), he represents the latter philosophy. The ideas of morals and right and wrong usually stem from some kind of worldview that involves a supreme/divine being that has created a natural order and thus punishes and rewards people after they die according to how they lived.

However, if you don't believe in any being or order controlling the universe, then it's safe to assume that our actions have no moral consequences attached to them. We can do as we wish and suffer no repercussions. This is actually a very prominent and plausible belief.

However, considering that we do have moral responsibilites, I am more concerned with how much responsibility men are mandated to take upon themselves (obviously, if you adhere to no specific religion or are skeptical, then there are no doctrines that give us definite answers). Many people attempt to maintain conflicting virtues/morals, which our culture and society encourage upon us.

Seditious, I'm curious: taking the example of an authority figure committing an illegal/immoral act (immoral might not apply for your views) do we of lesser authority have the responsibility to react? If our boss is mistreating workers? If a military commander gives an ill-conceived order? If our president engages in a war we feel is unjust? What if a parent did something questionable? Where is the line between "righteousness" and "family" drawn?

I'm curious as to all this because I'm writing a fantasy fiction story and the world I'm writing in is a polytheistic world (so they maintain a kind of moral code). The virtues of this world are modeled after many of our own world and history.

 

[razoredge]

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.

First Im refering or sticking toward the origional question which didnt seem to have anything to do with playing sports.

Who decides - why me of course.... sorry seems like a silly question. Maybe I understand conscience or just have a good one and what... I should compromise it so others can have one too ?

Justified war ? Well let me see... lets say I(#1) go down to my neighbors house, kill the fucker and his little bastard son, rape his wife and daughter, then kill them slowly at least inside.... gee I dont know, my conscience is struggling with this. Now Im (#2) the big bad mother further up the road with sound conscience, see this going on and march down there and kick the depraved maniac in the balls until he bleeds out... I walk away feeling justified.

Just doesnt seem like much to toss around to me.

 

[razoredge]

einherjar - I'll never explain this correctly but will try. Today we have people going over the top in their denial of religion. By this I mean, not only do they want to deny that there was/is a supreme being, they also want to deny the purpose of the writtings in the books. Without getting into my views of the religious thing. When you just get down to the ten commandments and maybe some other "moral" stuff thats in there. Its all based on centuries of mans hard learned lessons, observations, inner searching, compassion and once again conscience. Somehow I cant imagine for example anyone seeing some dude start slapping his woman around and not instinctively have the desire to walk over and stop him, if not wail him upside the head. If someone wants to pass this instinct off on me by saying its solely because I was taught about the bible at a young age and grew up in America rather than with the Pygmies (sp).... then I say thank you very much to my parents and all ancestors whos fate landed me here.

I guess Im just saying so many are so caught up in denying religion they also want to deny every word thats ever been written by our elders. It more pathetic than me giving some people with scientific backgrounds a "hard time"... lol

 

[razoredge]

oh yeah, and that line only wobbles in the name of self serving and it is their eyes that is causeing the blur... the line remains steady

 

[Blowtus]

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.

Ok. When I said this "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'." I didn't mean it to imply (and I honestly can't see how a reading of it *could* imply that?) that there are times when we would intend to perform non-good actions - rather that it is possible to fit all manner of moralising into ones actions in the name of what one takes to be good. There may be no objective basis for it but that should not stop me saying 'murder is wrong' if I wish
I don't imagine you'd disagree, it wasn't any sort of refutation of what you'd said, just an expansion along the lines of my own views...

 

[Blowtus]

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

This is a philosophy forum. If you want to preach rubbish go elsewhere. Anyone 'sane' enough to think morality is as black and white as you paint it is very uneducated or stupid.

 

[razoredge]

This is a philosophy forum. If you want to preach rubbish go elsewhere. Anyone 'sane' enough to think morality is as black and white as you paint it is very uneducated or stupid.

speaking of yourself no doubt

If you dont like what I say... keep cryin me a river

morality is black and white, when your done crying you could always give me an example where it is not...

 

[Einherjar86]

When you just get down to the ten commandments and maybe some other "moral" stuff thats in there. Its all based on centuries of mans hard learned lessons, observations, inner searching, compassion and once again conscience.

True; but it all can be simplified to a fear of being punished in some form of afterlife or second existence. It's the whole idea of karma: that our deeds will come back to visit us. People question morality and the right way to treat other people because they fear being reprimanded, not because they think it's purely the right thing to do. If they believe that it is the "right thing," that means they believe in some kind of pre-existing order that defines how people are to be treated. People such as this believe that morality is not defined by a person, but by a divine essence. Thus, naturally, they arrive at the fear of disobeying this divine essence. But morality is not so simple; there are many different cultures with many different ideas of morality and righteousness, and many different "divine essences."

I'm not attempting to justify mistreating people at all (as Blowtus said also). I personally do believe that there are certain moral obligations bestowed upon human beings. I also believe in a certain pre-existing order, but I don't want to argue theologies and religious beliefs (I'm not Christian; call it simply spiritual is you want). However, despite my own beliefs, I also realize that morals can shift. I would never kill another human being; but what if that human being killed someone I loved? Would I have a right then to kill him/her? Nay, do I have a moral obligation to do so?

The problem with drawing lines in the sand is that when the wind blows, they become distorted.