The question of responsibility.

Selected

Does the concept of responsibility inhibit or contribute the progression of humankind?

Furthermore, is responsibility individually innate or sociologically contrived?

We, it appears to me, assume responsibility where, ultimately, no responsibility lies.

What is responsibility?

Black Swan

Selected wrote: »

Does the concept of responsibility inhibit or contribute the progression of humankind?

Would it depend upon how responsibility and progression were defined?

Max Weber in Economy and Society would perhaps see progression of humankind as the march of rationalisation. The individual in an increasingly rationalised society might find his actions inhibited by the "iron cage" of bureaucracy; i.e., rational-legal codes, rules, laws, standards, etc., that held someone to be responsible for compliance.

On the other hand, Weber suggests that this march of rationalisation was good to the extent that it increased the likelihood of predicting behaviour; and if you were capitalist, this predictability increased your ability to plan, invest, and reduce risk to capital.

Selected wrote: »

Furthermore, is responsibility individually innate or sociologically contrived?

Once again it would depend upon how you defined responsibility.

Jacques Derrida in Points would caution about the use of either-or dichotomies when observing human behavior; e.g., nominally categorizing responsibility to being either "individually innate" or "sociologically contrived."

C. Wright Mills suggested with his concept "sociological imagination" that there was an interaction between the individual and society, to where individual biographies were linked to the structure and nature of human society, as well as change for both the individual and the collective that individual was a part of, be that change deemed "progression" or some other outcome.

Selected wrote: »

We, it appears to me, assume responsibility where, ultimately, no responsibility lies.

Can you define and elaborate more on this?

Selected wrote: »

What is responsibility?

As noted earlier, can you define what it means to you, or borrow a definition from a philosopher, so that we may be conceptually consistent in our discussion?

Joe1919

Selected wrote: »

Furthermore, is responsibility individually innate or sociologically contrived?

I would think that there is a bit of both.

We do for example teach children to take responsibility for their actions etc. and we expect drivers to be responsible for their driving and we enforce this with the power of Law and punishments. Hence there is a socially constructed element to responsibility.

But there is some innateness as well. Families, parents, older siblings etc. often take responsibility for younger children and we even see animals such as dogs taking responsibility for their territory/family etc. Taking some responsibility for the others is also part of friendship and love.

Finally, we do hold people responsible for their actions and we feel very resentful towards those who injure us. Strawson wrote a great (but complicated) essay on this and argues that it does not matter whether there is any metaphysical basis for freedom or responsibility because we expect and demand responsibility from others and are naturally resentful to those who we feel should be responsible for their actions.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0888/oxfordopen/resentment.htm

Black Swan

Responsibility differs depending upon your perspective. For example, from the behaviourist perspective of BF Skinner in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, the young child is a blank slate that comes with no innate sense of personal responsibility, until (s)he was operantly conditioned in accord with prescribed schedules of reinforcement.

Sardonicat

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Responsibility differs depending upon your perspective. For example, from the behaviourist perspective of BF Skinner in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, the young child is a blank slate that comes with no innate sense of personal responsibility, until (s)he was operantly conditioned in accord with prescribed schedules of reinforcement.

We can't possibly know that a child not conditioned would not have a sense of responsibility of some kind, unless, of course, someone has had a chance that somehow survived form birth completely alone.

Black Swan

Sardonicat wrote: »

We can't possibly know that a child not conditioned would not have a sense of responsibility of some kind, unless, of course, someone has had a chance that somehow survived form birth completely alone.

Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics suggested that a person was personally responsible to the extent that they possessed a capacity for deliberation upon what is good, as well as the ability to decide how to act following that deliberation. It is assumed that a child at birth would not satisfy either of these conditions, consequently, they would be not be personally responsible for their actions, regardless if they were born in a community of persons or hypothetically "completely alone;" i.e., at birth personal responsibility would approximate zero, hence a behaviourist would label this condition at birth "tabula rasa" or epistemologically without the necessary and sufficient experience to deliberate or decide.

Sardonicat

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics suggested that a person was personally responsible to the extent that they possessed a capacity for deliberation upon what is good, as well as the ability to decide how to act following that deliberation. It is assumed that a child at birth would not satisfy either of these conditions, consequently, they would be not be personally responsible for their actions, regardless if they were born in a community of persons or hypothetically "completely alone;" i.e., at birth personal responsibility would approximate zero.

At birth, of course. but we can not know if an unconditioned person would be resonsible or not because they would not survive. So how do we know what a blank slate would look like when none have existed?

Black Swan

Sardonicat wrote: »

At birth, of course. but we can not know if an unconditioned person would be resonsible or not because they would not survive. So how do we know what a blank slate would look like when none have existed?

It would appear we agree that personal responsibility does not exist for a person at the moment of birth.

Some of the questions that remain may include if responsibility in fact exists (which has not been conclusively established at this point), and if so, to what extent, in what contexts, and under what conditions does it manifest itself?

Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Sigmund Freud, and BF Skinner, to name a few, have used the tabula rasa metaphor to depict childhood development following birth as a device to suggest that nurture rather than nature was the more important influence of the two (which may include personal responsibility).

In like manner we can name several philosophers that tend to favour nature over nurture in varying degrees, and in particular to contest if there is merit in the use of the tabula rasa metaphor when accounting for human development (Plato, Bonaventure, Thomas Hobbes, et al).

Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization has suggested that the use of metaphors (e.g., tabula rasa) are useful to expand the imagination and initiate discussion that may lead to powerful insights, but at the same time cautions that metaphors to some extent are distortions of reality (e.g., a child is not a tubula rasa in fact). This was the spirit and intent of using this device, and not an article of faith or fact on my part.

In addition to critiquing what others have posted, perhaps you would also consider offering additional philosophical material that may serve to answer the OPs questions?

Joe1919

Re nature/nurture, some of the ancients gave three groups of reasons for why we act (and this could also apply to responsibility).

1 It's the RATIONAL thing to do. The person for example who does not take responsibility for his own health or well-being acts irrationally. It also makes sense to take some responsibility for things external to ourselves and yet concern us indirectly.

2. By NATURE we like/love other people and get much happiness in our relationships and taking responsibility for others. Man is a social animal......no man is an island etc.

3.NURTURING, training, socialisation and developing the right habits and learning to take responsibility is also important.

Of course one of the big argument is to what extent we do things from habit (nurture) or we do thing from instinct (nature).

My own opinion is that it is a serious mistake to completely come down on one side and to ignore the other. For example, in the past, it was thought by some that homosexuality was something that was learned or picked up from others (nurture). However, this belief has is dangers in that people start to believe that homosexuality can be unlearned (by psychotherapy etc.) or eradicated by proper training, censorship, criminalisation etc. Nowadays the tendency by many is to see homosexuality as natural and this has led to a more tolerant attitude and acceptance.

Parents/teachers can also feel very guilty if too much emphasis is placed on the nurture side.i.e. If the child badly behaves the parent/teacher must be to blame. (This lets the child off the hook, the child is no longer responsible).

Hence imo all factors play their part (but there is some variation depending on the person and the situation.)

Sardonicat

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It would appear we agree that personal responsibility does not exist for a person at the moment of birth.

Some of the questions that remain may include if responsibility in fact exists (which has not been conclusively established at this point), and if so, to what extent, in what contexts, and under what conditions does it manifest itself?

Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Sigmund Freud, and BF Skinner, to name a few, have used the tabula rasa metaphor to depict childhood development following birth as a device to suggest that nurture rather than nature was the more important influence of the two (which may include personal responsibility).

In like manner we can name several philosophers that tend to favour nature over nurture in varying degrees, and in particular to contest if there is merit in the use of the tabula rasa metaphor when accounting for human development (Plato, Bonaventure, Thomas Hobbes, et al).

Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization has suggested that the use of metaphors (e.g., tabula rasa) are useful to expand the imagination and initiate discussion that may lead to powerful insights, but at the same time cautions that metaphors to some extent are distortions of reality (e.g., a child is not a tubula rasa in fact). This was the spirit and intent of using this device, and not an article of faith or fact on my part.

In addition to critiquing what others have posted, perhaps you would also consider offering additional philosophical material that may serve to answer the OPs questions?

Thank you Blue. I was critiquing Skinner's notion of the conditioned child, not your post.

Black Swan

Sardonicat wrote: »

Thank you Blue. I was critiquing Skinner's notion of the conditioned child, not your post.

Fair enough. In your critiques you have a good grasp of the conceptual issues, especially as pertains to the tabula rasa debate (Skinner, et al). We really would like to see you post more regarding the OPs questions. I am putting together a bit more myself, but I have not had time to frame it.

Selected

Responsibility reminds me of a synthetically engineered chemical that mimics an action of a naturally occurring, but non-patentable, substance (Love), where the result is apparently the same (duty of care) but the process differs. The constructed or contrived responsibility bypasses an individual’s natural or innate freedom to love by isolating and hijacking an attribute or expression of love, and manipulates or conditions the mind by replacing individual freedom with societal obligation.

I don’t feel any great love, nor a burden of responsibility, however, unlike love, I do find responsibility (as defined), quite irritating.

Responsibility is an unspoken act of love; acts of love cannot be coerced, extorted, or be socially obligatory – but in the absence or rejection of love?

I’ve found the responses to my (poorly formed:o) questions quite interesting – thanks:) – but I think the epistemology of love and its relevance in the 21st Century is what I really want to explore.

Black Swan

Selected wrote: »

I’ve found the responses to my (poorly formed:o) questions quite interesting – thanks:) – but I think the epistemology of love and its relevance in the 21st Century is what I really want to explore.

Why don't you start a new thread in Philosophy that addresses the "epistemology of love?"

SparkyTech

Selected wrote: »

Does the concept of responsibility inhibit or contribute the progression of humankind?

Furthermore, is responsibility individually innate or sociologically contrived?

We, it appears to me, assume responsibility where, ultimately, no responsibility lies.

What is responsibility?

Responsibility is our inherant set of morals and standards, and humankinds effort to adhere to them by trying to live out our lifes as best we can while taking onboard our instincts as to what is right and wrong. Some people in power brush off responsibility and inhibit mankind with their humanity, while others try to live just and righteous lives. I think thats the essence of responsibility.

Selected

Selected wrote: »

Responsibility reminds me of a synthetically engineered chemical that mimics an action of a naturally occurring, but non-patentable, substance (Love), where the result is apparently the same (duty of care) but the process differs. The constructed or contrived responsibility bypasses an individual’s natural or innate freedom to love by isolating and hijacking an attribute or expression of love, and manipulates or conditions the mind by replacing individual freedom with societal obligation.

I don’t feel any great love, nor a burden of responsibility, however, unlike love, I do find responsibility (as defined), quite irritating.

Responsibility is an unspoken act of love; acts of love cannot be coerced, extorted, or be socially obligatory – but in the absence or rejection of love?

I’ve found the responses to my (poorly formed:o) questions quite interesting – thanks:) – but I think the epistemology of love and its relevance in the 21st Century is what I really want to explore.

Responsibility lies in the mind of the autocrat - outside of that, it does not exist. (manifestation notwithstanding)

*edit function not available*

18AD

Here's an idea I haven't really had the chance to work through properly. It's worth a preliminary shot though.

The basic idea is that people are responsible for their actions, in that, if you do something, then you are the cause of that something happening, ie. you are free to act. The clincher is that you aren't totally free. Things exert their influence on you and you have to do the maths.

Selected wrote: »

We, it appears to me, assume responsibility where, ultimately, no responsibility lies.

How is there no responsibility? If I kick someone in the ear, am I not responisible? Considering I'm not coerced.

If a mountain falls over, the mountain can be considered "responsible" for having fallen. The only thing is, that no amount of giving out to a mountain is going to cause it to not fall over again.

What is responsibility?

Responsibility is just an extension of causality. But to be responsible we must be free. I don't think freedom contradicts causality.

Edit: It's not even necessary to have free will for this idea to work, as far as I can tell.

Does the concept of responsibility inhibit or contribute the progression of humankind?

Progress. Trial and error. If someone is wrecking the place, then we weed them out.

Again, it depends on what you consider progress. But if someone is going around murdering everyone, it is obvious that there is no progress here, from a human standpoint, the only standpoint.

Furthermore, is responsibility individually innate or sociologically contrived?

It's a socal construct in as far as people made it up. Without a conceptualisation there is nothing. It is innate in that, if you do something, you are the cause.

The conceptualisation is based on the idea that we can change the course of events to create more desired outcomes. Obvioulsy this is hugely subjective or intersubjective. Either way, it's not set in stone.

meryem

A living being is held responsible for his deeds since his childhood. It is only that his responsibilities changes with expectations from him from time to time according to his capabilities.

So it's like Karma, if a person will fulfill his responsibilities bestowed upon him by the natural practice of society rules he will earn good karma for himself.