Resposibility

[panpareil]

If "you didn't make that" is true, does that also mean that for the liberal religious there is no hell or judgement?

If society creates the circumstance for those who are rich do not those same circumstances create the poor as well?

If the only tools for obtaining wealth are dispensed to all by society, then why are only some rich and others poor?

Can society claim responsibility for the good things in mans life but avoid the same responsibility for the bad?

if you can not claim ownership for the good in your life are you free from guilt for the bad in others lives as well?

It seems someone or something is shirking their responsibility, or claiming to be responsible when they are not.

[cuchulain]

I don't believe society is responsible for each of us, whether it be our successes or our failures. Sure, society can certainly aid in success or failure. My mom and dad divorced when I was five, I turned out fine. Other kids fall apart and become problems for society. The key to that is that divorce isn't the cause, like so many people like to claim. Sure, maybe the stats are there to support that theory, but I believe that one is not necessarily a function of the other, regardless of the numbers. I think it is all in people's upbringing and education. Some black kids make it out of inner city life, so the opportunity exists clearly for ALL of them to make it, in my opinion. However, the problem is that today's society wants to blame anything ELSE, when in all reality the ultimate responsibility for all actions a person takes is theirs and theirs alone. Everyone I know has a sob story, and could have used that story as an excuse to flop instead of succeed, but most of them persevered and prevailed. Some persevered and didn't succeed wildly, but still are not criminals and get by just fine. Others gave up and turned rotten. Just my opinion, of course, but people need to suck it up sometimes and realize they are in charge of themselves. I don't believe the ONLY tools for success are dispensed by society, or even that society gives us tools at all. It's all about personal choices, and if a person makes even one bad decision, that can have disastrous repercussions on the rest of their life and their ability to succeed. I think we teach our kids it's alright to get it wrong, but then when they do, they find out we were lying.

Edited May 30, 2015 by cuchulain

[Dan56]

Your describing progressive liberalism? Obama said; "If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." And Hillary said; "It takes a village to raise a child."

I've got a business, and nobody else made it happen..... I've seen the kids down the street, and I don't want the village to raise my child.

Imo, its just socialism, which attempts to minimize individual effort and make everyone part of the collective. The idea is not to have equality for all, but to make everyone equal.. Its done by removing individual responsibility and spreading the wealth around. The problem is that once you squash entrepreneurship, you remove the incentive for betterment, and there won't be any wealth to spread around.. Punish the ambitious, and everyone is eventually reduced to poverty, leaving the government as our pimp.

[panpareil]

Another thought. If society deserves the lions share of the credit for things getting done and individuals are only marginally necessary, why is the entirety of the government not run by committee? Why is there a president, a single individual man? Shouldn't the executive branch require a multitude of men each with equal executive power? Shouldn't there be no place where a single individual is allowed to make decisions on his own, or where a single individual be allowed to be the deciding factor?

More importantly if it can be justified to have an individual make decisions seemingly for all of society in the position of president, why not everywhere else?

[Dan56]

The way the constitution is set up, that's the reason we have 3 branches of government, to prevent one person from dictating. While the executive branch can make some independent decisions, it is limited by the Supreme Court and can be over-ridden by congress. And there are occasions when one person must set an agenda, facilitate an action, or exercise some immediate authority. Congress can't agree on anything, its a hung jury 90% of the time, so we can't always rely on a committee to reach a conclusion, which can certainly impede progress when decisive attention or action is required. We need a captain at the helm, but not a king.

As the Fonz once said, organizations aren't great, individuals are.

[Key]

Your describing progressive liberalism? Obama said; "If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." And Hillary said; "It takes a village to raise a child."

I've got a business, and nobody else made it happen..... I've seen the kids down the street, and I don't want the village to raise my child.

Imo, its just socialism, which attempts to minimize individual effort and make everyone part of the collective. The idea is not to have equality for all, but to make everyone equal.. Its done by removing individual responsibility and spreading the wealth around. The problem is that once you squash entrepreneurship, you remove the incentive for betterment, and there won't be any wealth to spread around.. Punish the ambitious, and everyone is eventually reduced to poverty, leaving the government as our pimp.

You've got a business because there is a need. So, in essence, someone else did make it happen to motivate you to have a business. A need builds an industry, both great and small.

As for the kids, well, there is a reason they are the way they are today. In the past generations, kids were kept in line by the enforcement of respect and code of ethics by a community as a whole. Just one of many reasons a small town would seem just like a really big family.

Now, no one intercedes on bad behavior, and are discouraged by modern norms to do so. If a village doesn't help raise a child, said child accepts that as freedom to do as he/she pleases, especially with parents too preoccupied or un-involved to care.

[Dan56]

You've got a business because there is a need. So, in essence, someone else did make it happen to motivate you to have a business. A need builds an industry, both great and small.

As for the kids, well, there is a reason they are the way they are today. In the past generations, kids were kept in line by the enforcement of respect and code of ethics by a community as a whole. Just one of many reasons a small town would seem just like a really big family.

Now, no one intercedes on bad behavior, and are discouraged by modern norms to do so. If a village doesn't help raise a child, said child accepts that as freedom to do as he/she pleases, especially with parents too preoccupied or un-involved to care.

Businesses are created by those who recognize a need and fill it. No one motivated me, gave me the ambition, money, or entrepreneurship to succeed. What I believe your saying is that since I have customers, they are responsible for my success? But I created something they want and need, which is why they are handing me their money. Of course supply and demand are 2 sides of the coin, but needs alone never made anyone rich. My point was that if you take the motivation away from someone who's supplying a service, no one makes a dime, because goods and services won't be there to fill the needs of the public.

I agree that when no one intercedes on bad behavior, neither the parents or the village is much good. I just personally believe that the parents should be responsible for their own children and not rely on their neighbors to raise their kids. When I was a kid, all a teacher would need to do is call my parents... problem solved. Today, we have mayors telling the cops to "Let them loot" and teachers that are prohibited from punishing a child.

[Key]

Businesses are created by those who recognize a need and fill it. No one motivated me, gave me the ambition, money, or entrepreneurship to succeed. What I believe your saying is that since I have customers, they are responsible for my success? But I created something they want and need, which is why they are handing me their money. Of course supply and demand are 2 sides of the coin, but needs alone never made anyone rich. My point was that if you take the motivation away from someone who's supplying a service, no one makes a dime, because goods and services won't be there to fill the needs of the public.

That's not motivation to you?

That's also not implying that the business will necessarily be successful, or even make any money. Just saying if there was no need, there'd be no business.

You saw a need for your business and acted upon it, yes. Would you have still done so if there was none?

I agree with what you say of taking motivation away.

[cuchulain]

Dark side, Light side...both one side of the coin, I would say. Ultimately though, we are each responsible for our own actions, regardless of motivation. I could be firmly motivated to ram my vehicle into that jerk that just cut me off, but self control keeps me from doing so. If self control fails, do we blame the person I ram for my actions? Of course not, that is silly. Sure he provided the motivation, but I am still responsible for myself, yes? Although, looking at the legal system of today, I don't actually know anymore. Lots of people pawn off their responsibility successfully. I had a philosophy teacher once in college, who said the woman is responsible for getting pregnant because she knows the consequences, but of course he later argued the drunk is not responsible for accidents behind the wheel, because he was impaired at the time. I think they are both responsible, because they both know what happens in life. Which brings up the question, do you have to be aware to have responsibility? I don't think so. If a mentally handicapped person is playing with a gun and accidentally shoots someone, they are just as dead, regardless of if the handicapped person knew better or not. Just my thoughts of course.

Edited June 1, 2015 by cuchulain

[Brother Kaman]

I agree with you Dan56. Some folks like to split hair to the quantum level. I get it. Even if I were in the business of murdering people for their money, I would NEED people with money to murder. Like I said, splitting hair.

[cuchulain]

Splitting hairs is sometimes the way to get to the "Scalp" of the matter, so to speak, yes? We start with a hypothesis, and someone challenges that by splitting hairs, in essence. If their hair splitting has the objective of seeking the truth of a matter, is it wrong? Maybe they turn out to be right, and you change your hypothesis, or maybe they turn out to be wrong, and they change their hypothesis. Either way, knowledge is gained by someone, yes? I can understand that arguing the difference between potato with potatoe is just silly, but debating between who has responsibility doesn't seem so minor to me to be called hair splitting, friend. Lots of legal precedents can be set on who has responsibility, and that can shift perceptions in many areas of our lives, yes? And legal responsibility can change dependent on location, like fence lines for example. If a tree limb falls over a fence, who's responsible? In some states, the person with the tree on their property. In others, the person who owns the fence, which may or may not be the same person. Maybe these little debates do seem silly at times, but I think that people thinking about this sort of stuff are the same people who come up with laws about this sort of stuff in practice.

[Brother Kaman]

Splitting hairs is sometimes the way to get to the "Scalp" of the matter, so to speak, yes? We start with a hypothesis, and someone challenges that by splitting hairs, in essence. If their hair splitting has the objective of seeking the truth of a matter, is it wrong? Maybe they turn out to be right, and you change your hypothesis, or maybe they turn out to be wrong, and they change their hypothesis. Either way, knowledge is gained by someone, yes? I can understand that arguing the difference between potato with potatoe is just silly, but debating between who has responsibility doesn't seem so minor to me to be called hair splitting, friend. Lots of legal precedents can be set on who has responsibility, and that can shift perceptions in many areas of our lives, yes? And legal responsibility can change dependent on location, like fence lines for example. If a tree limb falls over a fence, who's responsible? In some states, the person with the tree on their property. In others, the person who owns the fence, which may or may not be the same person. Maybe these little debates do seem silly at times, but I think that people thinking about this sort of stuff are the same people who come up with laws about this sort of stuff in practice.

I agree with you Dan56. Some folks like to split hair to the quantum level. I get it. Even if I were in the business of murdering people for their money, I would NEED people with money to murder. Like I said, splitting hair.

I still agree with you Dan56.

[cuchulain]

You are still welcome to, Brother Kaman.

[Brother Kaman]

Just one more comment about the business thing and then I will let it go. Dan said he built his successful business himself. Yes he has customers. Many businesses with customers fail. Dan's, so far, has not.

[panpareil]

Since the causative benefits of society are equally accessible to all, (roads, running water, mail, police, firemen) why is it that some still end up benefiting more than others?

It is because the government is inept or discriminatory in its distribution of societies resources?

Or perhaps the causative benefits of society are not really the most important factor for success. Maybe there are greater and more essential causes of success than society.

[mererdog]

Since the causative benefits of society are equally accessible to all, (roads, running water, mail, police, firemen) why is it that some still end up benefiting more than others?

It is because the government is inept or discriminatory in its distribution of societies resources?

Or perhaps the causative benefits of society are not really the most important factor for success. Maybe there are greater and more essential causes of success than society.

You should never discount luck. And the idea that society's benefits are equally available is simply wrong. The roads do not lead everywhere, and not all the roads can handle the same amount of traffic. Cops show up.faster in some neighborhoods than in others. Many places don't have running water or access to firemen. Schools often underperform. Rural areas lack decent public transportation. It is harder to get a loan if you have the wrong address. It is harder to get hired if you.have the wrong name. And, of course, nepotism is not exactly a rarity.

Back to your initial question, we all owe debts of gratitude and we all have reason for vengeance or forgiveness. We are social animals. Like it or not, for good or for bad, we are in this together.

Edited June 4, 2015 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

If there is a road built that shortens the trip from Paducah KY to Cape Girardeau MO, it benefits truckers a great deal. On the other hand, it benefits me very little, since I rarely go to Paducah. Therefor, it benefits some more than others, by nature. This is not a negative thing, of course, since it has no negative impact on me that I can see. That is speaking to the road itself, of course. Applying the increase in local economics and business, it seems like it might have some positive impact on my life in the end, eh? Maybe, in the end, it doesn't just impact one set of society positively or negatively, maybe we are all linked, if not in the metaphysical sense then in the economic sense, eh? What benefits some parts of society, then, would benefit the whole of society as a result?

[mererdog]

What benefits some parts of society, then, would benefit the whole of society as a result?

This is true in broad terms. There are a lot of exceptions.though. Taking rapists off the streets is good for society as a whole, but not for rapists, right? Often, putting in a new road means taking away someone's family home, and economic gains don't always fully compensate for that sort of loss.

And benefits are never equal, as some are always in a better position to take advantage of them. The road lowers distribution costs, which lowers the prices you pay, but you would have to buy a lot of stuff to equal the benefit to the guy whose land went up in value by a couple million when the road was built. Which isn't to say it is unfair, just unequal.

[kokigami]

If "you didn't make that" is true, does that also mean that for the liberal religious there is no hell or judgement?

huh?

If society creates the circumstance for those who are rich do not those same circumstances create the poor as well?

society doesn't necessarily work to create equal circumstances. But, that said, often the circumstances that make some wealthy do so by making others poor.

If the only tools for obtaining wealth are dispensed to all by society, then why are only some rich and others poor?

Again, society isn't a perfect engine of equality. Those with wealth tend to manipulate to make it easier for those with wealth. For example, housing assistance will happily pay rent for a poor person (enriching a rich person) but will not pay a poor persons mortgage, enriching the poor person. These rules can be changed, of course, but power and wealth tend to oppose that kind of change.

Can society claim responsibility for the good things in mans life but avoid the same responsibility for the bad?

No, not really, to the extent that society is, in fact, responsible.

if you can not claim ownership for the good in your life are you free from guilt for the bad in others lives as well?

to the extent that one has free will - and I consider that to be limited to none - one can claim a share of credit or guilt for ones own circumstance. But the circumstance of others is more complicated algebra, because I, as an individual, have less direct influence on most others. WE, as society, bear a good deal of guilt and/or credit, however.

It seems someone or something is shirking their responsibility, or claiming to be responsible when they are not.

Probably. We really misunderstand the concepts, I think.

tough to respond point by point, because, honestly, I don't follow all the statements.

[cuchulain]

Mererdog, I can agree to a point with your sentiment, friend. But, I would say it IS beneficial to the rapist to take him off the street. I have a firm belief, and understand it is strictly my opinion, that when a person does harm to another, they also do harm to themselves.