Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 26
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?Page 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
How very sad that men feel threatened by charges of molestation in the company of children!!! I absolutely feel that you step in when a toddler is two seconds away from a parents eyes. As many have remarked...it takes a village to raise a child. There is no hypothetical situation that warrants any excuse. You step in where children are concerned. You help avert a disaster. You absolutely do, without question. If you don't you need to step up and throw away any caution and be real.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/8/2010 7:56:13 AM



As regards most of what happens in the world, there isn't anything that we can do.

That's why I don't bother voting. No one cares what you or I want, and there's nothing that you or I can do about things.




Actually, there are many things you can do.

You can literally decide to feed at least one child living in famine somewhere on the planet, and in doing so lessen the amount of pain and suffering in the world.


I clearly acknowledged that a person can make life better for a very few people. I spoke of the people who are closes to us. Some people who seriously need our financial help are in other countries. Some are in our own country. Yes, in general, many of the overseas people are more in need.

Lately, I've been needed to financially help people whom I know, and that takes away from my ability to help overseas. But you make a very good point about Oxfam, UNICEF, etc., and how nearly all of us can make so much more hopeful the life of one person far away, whom we don't even know. I think that's a good idea.

I don't buy Blu-Ray. I don't notice a problematic resolution-lack in ordinary DVD. I don't buy CD albums every month.

It seems to me that ethical philosophy doesn't have the legitmacy that metaphysics has. You know what feels ethicallly right. No philosopher is in a position to advise you.

When I spoke of "nothing that you or I can do about what happens in the larger world", I was talking more on the large scale.

You can't change the world. And, if you could, it would soon change right back, due to human nature. I'm not saying that I like the way society or the world is.


All we can do is, conduct ourselves as well as we can in our own lives, as regards the few people closest to us. Forget about events in the larger world. I don't even watch or listen to news.



(Am I the only one that finds it quaintly and perversely humorous that this moral outlook of yours is actually the logical extension of your hokey metaphysics?


I find it amusing that you find it quaintly and perversely humorous that you find my worldview to be consistent.

Are you aware of your namecalling? I have no idea why you have such strong negative emotional feelings about the subject that you're unable to discuss it in a calmer manner.

Your metaphysics has been discredited in the discussion in the other thread. I don't engage in any namecalling about Physicalism, but it's discredited.

About metaphysics, there's nothing wrong with being sure that you're right, other than the fact that the person sure that he's right is the one who is sure to be wrong. But the problem is that some people, when they're sure that they're right, become arrogant. So, when making assertions that you can't justify, you're seemingly unab le to keep from saying a lot about your opinion of those with whom they disagree. Can't you just stick to the topic?


Namely, that you can’t know whether other minds exist, so therefore why bother caring about the well-being of those that don’t exist.)


I didn't say that I didn't care about others. I said that there's nothing that you or I can do about changing the world, and so we needn't pretend to, by voting. And we needn't let its bullsh** factual claims into our houses via "news".


But to be more serious, with regard to this notion that we should only care about “the few people closest to us,”


I didn't say that I don't care about anyone else. I said that we can only help a few people. I spoke of people closest to us, though of course it's true that those very few people could include far-away people with whom we share money.


(Singer, interestingly, also wrote an entire book about this moral psychological fact about us called “The New Darwinian Left.”)


Yes, evolution certainly has a role in why society is as it is. It's naive to believe otherwise.



Yes, it really does exist, beyond just its “own context.”


You have no evidence to support that claim. There's no evidence, physical or otherwise, that this physical world has more than contextual existence, existence in the perception of its inhabitants.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about people, or that we shouldn't act in a way that seems right. Whether or not this world is fundamentally real and existent, what we do here matters very much, because it is in this world's context that we have this life.

Even how we conduct ourselves in a Monopoly game matters. If you played unnecessarily poorly, you won't feel good about yourself after the game. And if you stole from the "bank" when your opponent was using the bathroom, and threw the dice across the room, out of others' view, and then lied about the number that came up, you aren't genuinely playing Monopoly, and you have something to regret, and feel stupid about.


Better to give Mother Nature the finger and deny oneself the mindless thrill of just another Vuitton handbag or fancy platinum watch


(!)


If, to take just one hypothetical illustration, you were a participant in a petition written to the appropriate elected official(s) designed to exhort them to prevent a genocide from occurring elsewhere, and that massive petition ultimately played a big factor in the ensuing diplomatic action that prevented it, you would in fact have played a role, however small, in achieving this morally laudable end.

On the other hand, note that if all involved in the petition had held the same ethical precept -- namely, to not care one whit about what happens beyond your parochial confines and immediate circle of family and associates -- nobody would have signed the petition, and ergo it would not have played a role in stopping said genocide.


That's naive. For one thing, if you know that, in not wanting the genocide, you're in a negligibly small minority, then your reasoning about what "everyone" does is fallacious. It would be more relevant to speak of what your tiny minority all does or doesn't do. If that minority is tiny enough, it would make no difference whatsoever whether they all signed a petition.

By the way, I've signed petitions and made phonecalls.

For another thing, if the genocide-opposers weren't a tiny minority, then such things as genocide would be blatantly, obviously without support on the face of it, from the start, and therefore there wouldn't be a genocide to prevent.


You can apply this very same reasoning, mutatis mutandis, to your choice to not vote too (even though, indeed, no individual vote really matters at all, taken in and of itself).


Yes, the same reasoning applies to voting.


even individual drops in a bucket are needed to make the bucket full.


...Relevant only if the drops are coming from a supply sufficient to fill the bucket.


(I find many people erroneously presume that “running for office” is tantamount to, and exhaustive of, civic engagement.)


The facts greatly illuminate and no doubt constrain our moral discourse and decision-making, but at the end of the day normative reasoning requires something more than just our natural whims.


"Normative" means "of or establishing a norm" (Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary).

You seem to be implying that what is normative is also most right. Your Physicalism is the norm. That doesn't make it right. You often boast that you have support of some academic Western philosophers, is if numbers = right. But there are more Catholics than academic Western philosophers, so doesn't that make Catholicism more right than Physicalism?


My hope is that you are mature enough to distinguish between the two


...between normative reasoning and natural whims? I don't share your undue respect for what is normative. When you speak of natural whims, you're being vague again. My rejection of the pretense of accomplishing something by voting or watching (dor listening to) news isn't a whim, natural or otherwise.


, and perhaps rethink the sort of moral advice and outlook you might be misleadingly giving to other younger, more impressionable individuals.


We all consider our advice to be not misleading. That's why we give it.

I don't agree that my advice to not participate in the voting farce or the news bullsh** is misleading. You can't change the large-scale world. Don't waste your time and effort trying.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 28
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/8/2010 9:00:58 AM
As regards most of what happens in the world, there isn't anything that we can do.


When confronted with a statement like this, what else can one say but thank goodness for those precious few with the courage to step forward and make the attempt to change things for the better. The fact is that history is repleat with individuals who've made massive contributions to society - making this statement blatantly false.

Of course, I'm sure Appreciative is more than happy to take full advantage of the work, sacrifices and accomplishments of others who didn't hold this obviously defeatist, lazy and - truth be told - cowardly viewpoint. And why shouldn't he. Hypocrisy costs nothing.
 Beachippy
Joined: 3/21/2006
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/8/2010 1:35:13 PM
interesting... the question is whether "we" .... yadda yadda yadda...

yet it's a "man" posed in the situation... not a "person" (ie of either gender)...

are we discussing male ethics here?... or general human ethics?.... I'm not a woman, so I can't really say whether we share the same ethics at all times as our sisters....

myself.. I would have alerted someone of a potential situation, host/other parent.... if not move a bit closer to be of any help if there was an accident about to happen and no other guests were nearby or looking over that way,etc.. perhaps distracted by speeches or entertainment for those moments...

though, if someone had just called out from inside... Hey!! Taxi out front for such and such... and it was you.. and taxis were hard to get at that hour... I'd grab the jacket and head off... though still point out the childs situation to the closest person on the way through...
.. there may have been a reason for the guy to grab his jacket quickly and go without getting involved with a drawn out child rescue at a party...


I like the polynesian idea that children belong to the village.... and they share the responsibility of the children, who all don't necessarily live with their birth parents... maybe with aunts ,uncles, at cousins places etc ..

..it's not like someone else's child is my direct future... however, that child could be "OUR" future... nes pa?.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/8/2010 11:26:02 PM
Appreciative:



I don't buy Blu-Ray. I don't notice a problematic resolution-lack in ordinary DVD.


Personally, I’ve noticed that once you become accustomed to the 1080p or 720p resolutions it becomes increasingly difficult to watch “standard-“ definition content. It’s a sort of a contrast and habituation effect.

Also, for cinema buffs, the format is noticeably closer to the image as presented in theaters.



You know what feels ethicallly right. No philosopher is in a position to advise you.


We have to be very, very careful here. Notice that our “feelings” must be handled with extreme caution. They certainly do help facilitate many morally laudable actions. Yet at the same time, affect -- that is to say emotions, moods, gut feels -- is what is often, if not primarily, the culprit when it comes to moral ambivalence (inaction) and even moral atrocities.

This goes back to the point I was making about the is-ought fallacy: that what "is" the case -- in this context, “feeling” a given moral emotion which impels one to a certain action -- "ought" to be the case as well.

It clearly doesn’t follow, from a moral point of view.

If I had a dime for every student that had attempted to justify their moral intuitions in an ethics tutorial I once ran by simply asserting “it just feels right,” I’d indeed have just about enough dough for a Blu-ray title of my choice.

The “it just feels right” line is the equivalent of sin in moral philosophy. In moral philosophy, all moral claims must be justified with reasons. Deferring to holy scripture or feelings ain't moral reasoning.

Moral philosophers are certainly capable of providing illumination to all of us in various ethical matters, though this is generally true of well thought-out, rational, moral reasoning in general, regardless of who the individual partaking in it is -- which is why such clear-thinking should be advocated for, wherever and whenever possible.

Speaking of Peter Singer, I can certainly remember my experience of coming across his arguments for the first time as an undergrad, arguments that were completely foreign not only to me, but to my many fellow students -- ideas, incidentally, (alas, like all too many good ideas) conspicuously absent in the mainstream media.

So you should be a bit careful before presuming that the likes of the John Rawls, Confucius', Derek Parfits, Amartya Sens, Peter Singers, Martin Luther Kings, etc., of the world have no advanced moral insight to provide.



When I spoke of "nothing that you or I can do about what happens in the larger world", I was talking more on the large scale.


But even here we have to be careful as well. Even a cursory glance at some of the most revolutionary figures in history (regardless of what one thinks of their particular actions, morally speaking) show quite clearly that small groups and even singular individuals are capable of ushering in large-scale changes, either diachronically (long-lasting) or synchronically (relatively temporary).

The point is that thinking too literally that one can make no difference, even in principle, runs the risk of “manifesting destiny” -- that is to say, allowing for the possibility of that belief to get in the way, and outright preclude any possibilities that would have otherwise materialized sans that limiting belief.

(Ironically, a lack of limiting beliefs can also be used for destructive ends too: Hitler ostensibly thought he could single-handedly affect history and the world on a large-scale. His lack of limiting beliefs obviously did some very serious, proactive damage.)



Your metaphysics has been discredited in the discussion in the other thread. I don't engage in any namecalling about Physicalism, but it's discredited.


Reports of the demise of physicalism are greatly exaggerated.

Let us recall that no professionals in contemporary philosophy of mind or the mind sciences holds your quaint metaphysical view. This situation is certainly informative, as the view you espouse is almost the equivalent of a layperson declaiming that modern physics is wrong and that Aristotelian physics is correct.

And since we don’t pay attention to such crackpots who say such things, then neither should we pay attention to someone who makes analogous claims, as you do, in another area for which the professionals are worlds apart from your own quaint view. (In fact, it would make a good challenge to try to find at least 2 contemporary philosophers of mind or mind scientists who espouse your idealism.)

But this is getting off topic...



That's naive. For one thing, if you know that, in not wanting the genocide, you're in a negligibly small minority, then your reasoning about what "everyone" does is fallacious. It would be more relevant to speak of what your tiny minority all does or doesn't do. If that minority is tiny enough, it would make no difference whatsoever whether they all signed a petition.


Remember that I was primarily using this example for illustrative purposes, not to assert that it is in any way shape or form the “norm.” Though, having said that, many people have commented, to take a relatively recent example within the last couple of decades, that much was done to alleviate the situation in East Timor by the small-scale activism by people like Noam Chomsky and the other nameless individuals who supported that cause. Other examples are no doubt numerous.



...Relevant only if the drops are coming from a supply sufficient to fill the bucket.


That wasn’t the point. The point is simply that if everyone holds the mindset that absolutely nothing can be done, either on a “small-scale” or “large-scale,” then no potentially beneficial effect precipitating from something like a petition could ever materialize. This is a pretty elementary point.



"Normative" means "of or establishing a norm" (Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary).

You seem to be implying that what is normative is also most right. Your Physicalism is the norm. That doesn't make it right. You often boast that you have support of some academic Western philosophers, is if numbers = right. But there are more Catholics than academic Western philosophers, so doesn't that make Catholicism more right than Physicalism?


No, no...the term “normative” is being used in the moral sense: that is to say, “prescriptive;’ of values -- “oughts.”



When you speak of natural whims, you're being vague again. My rejection of the pretense of accomplishing something by voting or watching (dor listening to) news isn't a whim, natural or otherwise.


I don’t see how I’m being vague. My talk of “natural whims” was rooted in an understanding our evolved nature: what generally comes more “naturally” to us -- that is to say, “easier.”

In other words, it seems to be a psychological fact about our species that it is easier for us -- and indeed more affectively salient and impelling -- to save a baby drowning in a puddle 5 yards from our present location than it is to donate a small amount per month to Oxfam or UNICEF to feed a child in famine.

It certainly seems uncontroversial to say that more of our fellow humans are willing to do the former (save the drowning child in front of them) than they are the latter (feed a distant child on the other side of the globe).

Singer’s central moral point was that there is a moral equivalence between the two cases. If you want the complete argument, check out his short yet famous paper, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 10:21:12 AM
In reality, if nothing happens to the child then nobody's any the wiser.
It's only when the child is harmed that any fault is assigned.
If the man actually picks up the child to avert a potential disaster, he may be accused of molestation or intruding where it was none of his business.

This is why we seldom do anything positive about anything until a disaster happens.
 garry1949
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 32
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 11:48:20 AM
From post By: Appreciative9809 on 11/8/2010 1013 AM:

" As regards most of what happens in the world, there isn't anything that we can do.
That's why I don't bother voting. No one cares what you or I want, and there's nothing that you or I can do about things."

And also:

"When I spoke of "nothing that you or I can do about what happens in the larger world", I was talking more on the large scale.
You can't change the world. And, if you could, it would soon change right back, due to human nature. I'm not saying that I like the way society or the world is."

I agree with all of the above.
I wonder why it is that throughout history most good people of all countries merely wanted a fair and peaceful society to raise a family in and yet somehow power/wealth hungry warmongers always seemed to come along and by deception and demonization of others cause division among us to upset things. War, plunder and land confiscation always seemed to be the (often hidden) objective and usual result along with the usual byproducts of dead and wounded, widows, orphans, homelessness, disease etc .

But who were/are these "leaders"? From a spiritual perspective we can say that a world or life beyond this earth and what they might forcefully derive from it means little or nothing to them. We could also safely say that they have very little compassion for the suffering they, through their actions might cause others.

So how can we ever change such a world?
Well, we could try to learn the truth about our survival of death and the truth about Karma. If all of us would make it a life's priority to seek truth and teach truth we might all finally be rid of our ignorance and selfish attachment to earth and earthly possessions which have been the source of so much suffering throughout history.
We could examine the principles of the non-religion of Theosophy.

And we might come to realize we have some responsibility toward our brother, who's toddler is playing on slippery rocks in a pond.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 33
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 5:42:33 PM
How bout this for an example of profane: Our brother best watch his child if he invites me to a party. I didn't come to watch his child. He has a responsibility to my safety and conscience upon inviting me to his home and I will leave if this type of behavior persists. How dare someone put the life of their child in my hands without asking me. That is a huge responsibility, if I want that responsibility I will bring my own children to the party to watch....And I have to suffer the rest of my life when something happens. How f""in selfish.... Danger will rogers~ unattended children playing in dangerous surroundings: inevitable outcome tragedy.. do I stay and take responsibility for the parents continued inattention to their child; Therefore, being fully responsible for the inevitable outcome or do I leave and ethically remove myself from guilt. Grabbing my coat see you later...

if the child dies> the child will know no better~ the parents will forever assail themselves with guilt, as will any party goer who saw the child and ignored him/her, as will those who left the party upon seeing such a ridiculous incident of misadventure. And none of it will change the outcome; the child will be dead..............So I guess everyone has a responsibility; sole responsibility does not rest with the person who left the party...Maybe we can see tragic accidents as just that and not assess guilt...Motives are not understandable. WE don't know why the person left, we don't know why the parent wasn't watching their toddler, we don't know why they didn't have a locked fence around a dangerous landmark an obvious safety hazard with toddlers, we don't know any of the why's or wherefores.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 34
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 6:37:35 PM
inicia, I agree with all your ideas, but I would still feel bad about the thing after the fact.

It might be Nippleoeon who said the best. If we leave the party, and sometime down the line we hear about the death of the child, there may not be a connection that we automatically and unconditionally fault ourselves. In fact, we may not even find fault in our, or in others' actions. There will be too few details available to us; there will be mixed details; there will be no possible logical connection that if we did something, then the child would have survived. In fact, the thing will blow over in seven seconds, if.

But if it turns out that if someone pieced the events together meticulously, and we learn that our inaction and the child's death was only seconds apart, we might fault ourselves. I question, though, that we would be aware of the time to the last second. Would we have looked at our watch at the time when we saw the child and we turned around? if we did, would we have memorized it? I mean, if you look at your watch on the street, and three seconds later someone asks you the time, you look at your watch again. I tried this on many strangers, it never fails, it works like a clockwork. (Pardon me the pun please if you noticed it.)

So; there might be a very little chance that we would have a reason to blame ourselves. The initial story does not make us believe that all the elements in the story would work just so that we would be made aware beyond any doubt that we could have saved the child.

So no, my answer is no. Thanks, Nip.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 9:25:08 PM

Scenario - At a yard party, a man witnesses an apparently unsupervised toddler climbing on the rocks of a large fish pond. A few moments later, he enters the house, gets his jacket and leaves. The toddler is later found lifeless in the pond.

It all depends on
How aware of the danger the witness was
How aware of his capacity to overt the danger
As that information is not available one can only assume, now that is being dangerous
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 36
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/9/2010 10:14:56 PM
O.K.....apparently nobody including this man paid any attention to this toddler. Were there any women at this yard party? Singularly he is not responsible, everybody there is. You do not ignore a toddler ever in a situation like this one. But then again, maybe the mother was right there and getting ready to act. If not, everybody at this stupid party deserves a good knock on the head.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/12/2010 4:18:38 AM
I'd do what I have done before. I'd warn the kid that he/she is in danger, and to get down from off there. If the kid didn't listen, and I was a friend of the family, who has been allowed to hug the kid before, I'd pick him/her up and take him/her off there. If the kid wasn't known to me, then I'd immediately find the parents or relatives of the kid, and tell them that the kid is in an unsafe situation. If I couldn't find any parents or relatives of the kid, I'd tell whoever was in authority, or running the party.

However, if the kid fell in, then I'd wade in and grab him/her anyway. I'd rather be accused of being a paedophile than be responsible for a kid dying. I can always answer the accusations. But I can never reverse it, if the kid died.

That is what I think any responsible human being would do.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 38
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/12/2010 7:11:53 PM
"I'd do what I have done before. I'd warn the kid that he/she is in danger, and to get down from off there. If the kid didn't listen, and I was a friend of the family, who has been allowed to hug the kid before, I'd pick him/her up and take him/her off there. If the kid wasn't known to me, then I'd immediately find the parents or relatives of the kid, and tell them that the kid is in an unsafe situation. If I couldn't find any parents or relatives of the kid, I'd tell whoever was in authority, or running the party.

However, if the kid fell in, then I'd wade in and grab him/her anyway. I'd rather be accused of being a paedophile than be responsible for a kid dying. I can always answer the accusations. But I can never reverse it, if the kid died.

That is what I think any responsible human being would do. "

That's all fine and admirable, except absolutely all of these actions have been precluded from the possible scenario. The original question was, "you see the kid in a dangerous situation, YOU GO HOME and you learn the kid died." These are all ad acta, these are not things you are allowed to change in the story. The question was, how do you feel when you hear that the kid died? The question was not "what possible steps could you have taken to prevent the tragedy?"

So, yes, that's what a responsible human would do, you're right, but what about the restrictions posed in the original question? Without restricitons and having two weeks to think on the plan of execution of this problem, yes, almost everyone could come to a solution similar to yours, even if not as nice, polished, well-oiled and perfect a solution as yours.

I don't mind at all if people or I go away from the topic momentarily, but the restricitons of the original question were very, very important to not go against, in my opinion. Ignoring those restrictions uttered as an ad acta set of events, makes the problem entirely different from the spirit and essence of the problem as presented.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/13/2010 10:56:13 AM
RE Msg: 38 by FoshFish:
"I'd do what I have done before. I'd warn the kid that he/she is in danger, and to get down from off there. If the kid didn't listen, and I was a friend of the family, who has been allowed to hug the kid before, I'd pick him/her up and take him/her off there. If the kid wasn't known to me, then I'd immediately find the parents or relatives of the kid, and tell them that the kid is in an unsafe situation. If I couldn't find any parents or relatives of the kid, I'd tell whoever was in authority, or running the party.

However, if the kid fell in, then I'd wade in and grab him/her anyway. I'd rather be accused of being a paedophile than be responsible for a kid dying. I can always answer the accusations. But I can never reverse it, if the kid died.

That is what I think any responsible human being would do. "

That's all fine and admirable, except absolutely all of these actions have been precluded from the possible scenario. The original question was, "you see the kid in a dangerous situation, YOU GO HOME and you learn the kid died." These are all ad acta, these are not things you are allowed to change in the story. The question was, how do you feel when you hear that the kid died? The question was not "what possible steps could you have taken to prevent the tragedy?"
But that's the point. I would NOT just go home, because I know that I'd feel terrible about it if I ignored the situation and some tragedy resulted from my inaction.

So, yes, that's what a responsible human would do, you're right, but what about the restrictions posed in the original question? Without restricitons and having two weeks to think on the plan of execution of this problem, yes, almost everyone could come to a solution similar to yours, even if not as nice, polished, well-oiled and perfect a solution as yours.
It's not nice, or well-polished. I have chosen this method of behaviour, precisely because I have been confronted with many similar situations and I had to decide what to do.

For instance, when I was about 13, a van turned the corner right in front of my house and another car smashed straight into it. The driver was hanging half out of the door, covered in blood. First thing I did was call for an ambulance.

Another time, I was waiting in the accident and emergency department of the local hospital at about 10pm at night, when no nurses or staff were around and a woman pushed her husband in a wheelchair into the waiting room. The man was bleeding profusely from the middle of his skull. A young woman who was also waiting sprung into action, and asked me to press down on the wound, to stop the man bleeding to his death from his head wound until a nurse and doctor could come to aid.

These are just 2 out of many such incidents.

I don't mind at all if people or I go away from the topic momentarily, but the restricitons of the original question were very, very important to not go against, in my opinion. Ignoring those restrictions uttered as an ad acta set of events, makes the problem entirely different from the spirit and essence of the problem as presented.
It's all very well saying that it's not part of the question. But either this man has lived a charmed life, where he's never seen people in serious injury, where their very life hangs in the balance, and your actions could be the determinant between them living or dying, and so far, I've never met anyone who has lived that charmed a life, or he's just never bothered to realise that his inaction could lead to the death of innocents.

At best, he's either lived a completely charmed life, unlike everyone I've ever met, or he's an unthinking moron. At worst, the guy has no regard for human life. Most people are somewhere in between the 2, usually thinking more about themselves than others.

Ask yourself: if you saw a child drowning, but if you get in and save the child, the child's mother might accuse you of "touching" her child. Would you do it anyway, or would you think about yourself to the detriment of the child's life?

I know what I would do, which is to dive in anyway. But read the previous responses, and you'll see that not everyone feels that is the best option in the situation.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/13/2010 12:08:55 PM
OffIShall:


We have to be very, very careful here. Notice that our “feelings” must be handled with extreme caution. They certainly do help facilitate many morally laudable actions. Yet at the same time, affect -- that is to say emotions, moods, gut feels -- is what is often, if not primarily, the culprit when it comes to moral ambivalence (inaction) and even moral atrocities.


I didn't say all feelings result in treating others the way I'd prefer that people be treated.

But, contrary to what your moral philosphers think, feelings are all that there is, when it comes down to it, for morality and ethics.

You believe in moral philosophy as you believe in Physicalism, because it was taught to you.

By the way, given your consistent behavioral level here, you don't come across as someone likely to be a genuine humanitarian. You're saying what you've been taught. You're a humanitarian just like Abelian is a physicist :-)

Want to hear some morality?: "You attack me, you get hurt."

If the guy looks big enough to enforce that, then you don't attack him. It's that simple.

If there are people who harm people, then, as a society, we try deny their access to people that they can harm. Not morality--practicality.


Reports of the demise of physicalism are greatly exaggerated.


Mark Twain's famous statement was supported by the fact that he was obviously, provably alive. You're borrowed use of his statement doesn't share that verification. You've proven unable to answer simple questions about the specifics of what you mean about your "evidence" for Physicalism.


Let us recall that no professionals in contemporary philosophy of mind or the mind sciences holds your quaint metaphysical view.


You mean Western philosphy. Could it be that our great humanitarian is also a cultural chauvinist?

And only the current fashion of Western philosophy. Even Western philosophy has had many metaphysicses advocated.

What? You mean that the people who taught you your beliefs, and whom you parrot agree with you rather than with me? What a coincidence :-)


This situation is certainly informative, as the view you espouse is almost the equivalent of a layperson declaiming that modern physics is wrong and that Aristotelian physics is correct.


Well no, actually not quite. You see, non-Aristotelian physics has some evidence suppporting it. Physicalism does not.


And since we don’t pay attention to such crackpots who say such things, then neither should we pay attention to someone who makes analogous claims


No, not analogous, because, as I said, because Physicalism isn't supported by evidence, as is modern physics.


, as you do, in another area for which the professionals are worlds apart from your own quaint view.


...worlds apart from eachother too, unless you chauvinistically are only referring to today's fashion among Western philosophers.

Did you know that there are philsophers in India? Did you know that Indian Metaphysics originated with philosophers? Try to criticize disagreement with Physicalism with some kind of supported argument. But don't try to claim that all philosophers endorse Physicalism.

Professionals? Are you aware that professional Churchpeople are nonPhysicalists?

You think that Physicalism is supported by science, but you must be unaware that Newton, Einstein and Schroedinger made their contributions without being Physicalists, because Physics has nothing to do with, and in no way implies or supports, Physicalism. The fact that Einstein and Schroedinger weren't Physicalists must be embarrassing for your claim that only a crackpot wouldn't be a Physicalist.
Schroedinger endorsed Indian Metaphysics. Are you saying that he, too, did so because he didn't understand science as well as you do? :-)


(In fact, it would make a good challenge to try to find at least 2 contemporary philosophers of mind or mind scientists who espouse your idealism.)


There are, and have been for a long time, plenty of philosphers in India who aren't Physicalists.

And no, I'm not an Idealist. I've looked it up since we discussed it, and practically no sources support your claim. Idealism claims that what fundamentally is consists of mind or an idea, according to nearly all sources I found.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/14/2010 6:59:05 AM

Scenario - At a yard party, a man witnesses an apparently unsupervised toddler climbing on the rocks of a large fish pond. A few moments later, he enters the house, gets his jacket and leaves. The toddler is later found lifeless in the pond.


If the man is aware of the danger and realises that an obvious tragedy is unfolding before his eyes and does nothing - he is without a doubt ethically, morally and legally responsible for that indifference, and the death of the child. If the danger never registered in his mind for whatever reason, he is neither ethically, morally nor legally responsible for failing to recognise the danger to the child.

He would have to admit post mortem to his indifference to be charged or convicted of negligence resulting in the death of the child. To admit to that indifference he would in essense be admitting to being a sociopath. Although some sociopaths like to rub your nose in their indifference towards the lives of others, when it comes to a question of their own liberty it is highly unlikely such an admission would be forthcoming.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 42
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/14/2010 4:37:59 PM
"But that's the point. I would NOT just go home, because I know that I'd feel terrible about it if I ignored the situation and some tragedy resulted from my inaction."

That is very good, and there is nothing wrong with this course of action or with your attitude. Many would not do this.

Actually, the only wrong thing is that you ought not to be answering the question. You CAN'T answer the question. The question presupposed very clearly, and it is understood, that it is directed at those who can act like not you. It was "given" that people who are qualified to answer the question are people who would find themselves in a moral dilemma. You preclude from your life, or do all attempts to preclude from your life, all events that might lead you to a moral dilemma.

If you don't have moral dilemma about this scenario, or can't imagine to be in one, you can't answer the question. It is for people who are able to see themselves in that scenario, and then decide if they would feel guilty, everything said and done. You said, you would not allow yourself to find yourself in a situation in which you could even partially blame yourself for a moral or ethical wrongdoing.

The question is for people who would, and perhaps often do, allow themselves to find themselves in just such a situation.

I believe you would have done the right thing. I believe this truly, I am not just giving you lip service. I just find it -- I don't know what... too much boasting? "This is what I! would have done." It's not wrong, not at all. Your actions are well-tought out. You'd do the smartest thing. You are right.

But it is not a question which asks what would have been the right things to do. It is a question that is not asking people to think about how they could have avoided the situation. It is a question that if they DID not prevent a tragedy, would they feel RESPONSIBLE for it AFTER the tragedy happened?

I am not saying you are not allowed to talk about anything you like on these threads. I do, as does everyone else. I am just pointing out that you are not answering the question, and you are not the type of man who can answer a question in which you have to feel responsible at any time for failing to prevent a by you preventable tragedy. You always prevent those potential tragedies from happening. So you are welcome to say that, I just say you are not answering the question. You CAN'T POSSIBLY answer the question, given your disposition, character and foresight.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/14/2010 5:15:01 PM
RE Msg: 42 by FoshFish:
Actually, the only wrong thing is that you ought not to be answering the question. You CAN'T answer the question. The question presupposed very clearly, and it is understood, that it is directed at those who can act like not you.
That's against forum rules. You aren't allowed to post a question only to some people here, on ANY basis, only men, only women, or any other condition.

It was "given" that people who are qualified to answer the question are people who would find themselves in a moral dilemma. You preclude from your life, or do all attempts to preclude from your life, all events that might lead you to a moral dilemma.
Quite the reverse. I don't preclude that possibility from my life. That's why I wrote such a detailed answer as to what I would do, precisely because I know how easy it is to overlook situations of danger.

If you don't have moral dilemma about this scenario, or can't imagine to be in one, you can't answer the question. It is for people who are able to see themselves in that scenario, and then decide if they would feel guilty, everything said and done.
That's the point. The reason I put that detailed explanation, is that if I didn't remember to do all that, then I might feel incredibly guilty about it.

You said, you would not allow yourself to find yourself in a situation in which you could even partially blame yourself for a moral or ethical wrongdoing.
No, I didn't. That was your interpretation of what I wrote. But if you actually READ what I wrote, "But that's the point. I would NOT just go home, because I know that I'd feel terrible about it if I ignored the situation and some tragedy resulted from my inaction." I would NOT home, because if I did, I'd feel guilty. But I still don't have a perfect memory, and that means that it can happen that I wouldn't do this, and then would feel incredibly guilty about it.

Would I hold the person accountable for his actions? I would point out to him the severity of what he'd done. If he then showed great remorse for his actions, then I would be understanding, that we all make mistakes sometimes. But if he denied any culpability, and claimed that he'd done nothing wrong, then I'd say to throw the book at him, because he's not even willing to consider he did something wrong, and so, in the future, he'll continue to behave the same way to the cost of others' lives.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/14/2010 5:36:43 PM
Rainiqui: I mentioned the legal aspects by way of illustration, but I wasn't clear about that. Moral responsibility is usually a very PERSONAL issue, that is, a person either FEELS responsible, or they don't. Using the LEGAL results to illustrate, I was trying to suggest where LOGICAL responsibility was.
As to the primary thrust that this thread seems to be about, whether or not A PERSON SHOULD be held responsible BY THEIR PEERS (social condemnation IS tantamount to legal action, so you are crossing your OWN line a bit there), for the results of their INACTION, that's a touchy area.
Especially since you frame it as a concern where a PUNISHMENT occurs ("The man is condemned by his community for his [in]action"), I am VERY loath to support a GENERAL RULE that we are as responsible for our INACCTIONS (morally or legally) as for our actions. Though you have tried hard to create a scenario that is designed to get a "yes" answer, the QUESTION you posted is a general one. Again, referring to LEGAL cases (since they are REAL examples of REAL instances of this sort of scenario), and I AGREE with those cases, NEGLIGENCE is considered an action of sorts. Willfully tolerating danger to others is legally culpable.
Trying to separate legal from moral issues in THIS instance, is actually an attempt to approve or deny apporval to REAL punishments, without using legal authorities. That's a cheat, to my thinking.
So, is it meet that the neighbors of a person who KNOWINGLY allowed a child to come to terminal harm, should punish the person, by public condemnation, or perhaps shunning? It's fine with me. But since the only difference bewteen THIS guy, and everyone ELSE at the gathering was that THIS guy was more observant than everyone else, shouldn't EVERYONE at the gathering be held equally responsible (irresponsible?) ? And so should not they EACH, condemn and shun EVERYONE ELSE?
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/15/2010 9:55:35 AM
Appreciative1909:



But, contrary to what your moral philosphers think, feelings are all that there is, when it comes down to it, for morality and ethics.


By your reasoning, if X feels it’s ok to throw puppies at the wall, it is morally OK to do so.

Similarly, if Y feels it’s OK to kidnap and torture babies, then, indeed, it is OK to do so.

You see, that’s not how it’s done in moral philosophy. In moral philosophy we give reasoned arguments that conform to the rules of logic. Some moral philosophers also engage in various issues in meta-ethics, which includes but is not limited to the question of moral realism (though the latter is, generally speaking, a separable issue to general moral reasoning).

I would hope that the above two examples -- that of the puppy and baby cases -- are not what you countenance morally. If it they are...then I am sincerely and deeply sorry for you.

If you want a classic pair of examples that lucidly illustrate how moral affect can cloud our ethical deliberations, consider the famous “trolley problem.”

Here’s how it goes. In case 1, there is a train speeding down a track, where the track branches off into two tracks. On one of the tracks, there are five people tied down; on the other track, there is only one person tied down.

The train is set to go down the track with the five individuals, and in doing will kill them all. However, you stand in front of a lever controlling the track switch. If you push the lever, the train will instead go down the other track where it will kill the single individual, hence saving the five...

Now, in experiments in moral psychology where this dilemma is posed, the majority of subjects decide to press the switch to save the five individuals at the expense of the single individual’s life -- classic utilitarian reasoning.

However, consider the responses to the second dilemma also posed to the same subjects.

In that second dilemma, we also have a train speeding down a track which will kill five people tied down to the track. This time, there is a foot-bridge that goes over the track about 20 yards in front of the five individuals tied down.

You also happen to be standing on the bridge where there is a fat man overlooking the track. If you push the fat man, he will fall over the bridge but will stop the train, hence saving the five individuals who will otherwise die.

In the experiments, most subjects do not decide to push the fat man. Of course the puzzling aspect here is why they would choose the analogous decision in the first case -- namely pushing the lever to kill the single individual in order to save the five -- yet fail to make good on the morally equivalent decision in the second case -- namely pushing and thus killing the fat man in order to save the five.

To be morally consistent, individuals choosing to push the lever in the first case should also follow suit in pushing the fat man in the second case; yet as the experiments routinely show, most people are not consistent in this way.

The favored explanation that has been proferred in the moral psychology literature is evolutionary in nature. Basically, our moral faculties have evolved in such a way as to be guided by moral affect in situations that call for us to make direct actions that will harm an innocent agent. In other words, scenarios like the former, where the action requires the mere flip-of-a-switch -- that is, where there is physical distance between you and the agent who will be harmed -- are much easier decisions to make and follow through with.

By contrast, scenarios like the former, where the action required is much more personal -- requiring contact in closer quarters -- are those that we have a much more difficult time with.

Indeed, there are at least two pieces of strong evidence which corroborate this explanation. The first involves studies of chimpanzees, who also evince the same eschewal of actions that are of the more personal, close quarters type. (This has been elevated to what has been dubbed the “ME-HURT-YOU” principle in the literature.)

The second piece of evidence comes from experiments of the trolley problem where subjects have their brains scanned with functional MRI while making their decisions.

Indeed, unlike the first case (the lever-switch case) where subjects’ brains are predominantly lit up in the prefrontal cortex (areas associated with planning and explicit decision-making, inter alia), the latter case (the fat man case) lights up emotion-related centers of the brain, which is strongly suggestive that subjects’ decision-making is being constrained and heavily guided by emotion.

Thus, it takes much more effort to subdue the strong affective influences that we experience in the second class of cases (of the up-close-and-personal ilk) and veto them with the type of detached, objective, off-line reasoning associated with regions of our prefrontal cortex.

Indeed, the story these days in moral psychology and affective neuroscience is that emotion really is one of the most powerful forces in the human universe.



You believe in moral philosophy as you believe in Physicalism, because it was taught to you.


Wrong on both accounts, friend. In philosophy, reason, not authority, is what is prized. Secondly, I don’t know why you speak of “believing” in “moral philosophy,” as if it were some philosophical school or theory.

Moral philosophy is an area of investigation. Your best bet as a beginner would be to directly engage in earnest with the work of moral philosophers. Only the ignorant would castigate an entire sub-discipline without examining it first hand, and even then you’ll only really be able to say, at most, that you disagree with specific moral philosophers, while agreeing with others. You could of course start with the Peter Singer paper I linked to in the other post.

The main point is in justifying moral claims with reason. Emotion doesn’t fly when it comes to moral philosophy.



By the way, given your consistent behavioral level here, you don't come across as someone likely to be a genuine humanitarian. You're saying what you've been taught.


No, not quite.

After having come across Singer’s work as an undergrad, I found his logical reasoning -- keyword: logical reasoning -- compelling. It was the reasoning, not the fact that the paper was on the course syllabus or that Singer is a well-known ethicist that convinced me that his argument was very good. Why don’t you read it for yourself and come to your own appraisal of the argument.



Want to hear some morality?: "You attack me, you get hurt."

If the guy looks big enough to enforce that, then you don't attack him. It's that simple.


Yeah, no, this doesn’t fly either. This is essentially equivalent to saying that it’s moral for China to drop carpet bombs on the tiny nation of Tuvalu. I mean, they are much bigger, and all things being equal, they could enforce that whim. Does that mean it’s moral?

What do you think?



You mean Western philosphy. Could it be that our great humanitarian is also a cultural chauvinist?

And only the current fashion of Western philosophy. Even Western philosophy has had many metaphysicses advocated.

What? You mean that the people who taught you your beliefs, and whom you parrot agree with you rather than with me? What a coincidence :-)


Cultural chauvinist? Hardly.

Like science, modern analytical philosophy aims to be as unbiased and objective as humanly possible. With respect to the issue of consciousness in the philosophy of mind, all views, regardless of their provenance, are given equal consideration under the light of reason and evidence.

It just so happens that your favored metaphysics of consciousness -- your brand of Indian metaphysics -- is not very plausible, and consequently does not really feature at all in modern discussions of consciousness, by dint of its implausibility to the professionals in the philosophy of mind.

...You're not going to read those books I recommended, are you?



And no, I'm not an Idealist. I've looked it up since we discussed it, and practically no sources support your claim. Idealism claims that what fundamentally is consists of mind or an idea, according to nearly all sources I found.


Huh? How is your view not essentially positing that all that exists is a mind/or minds? Trust me, if you looked at more scholarly sources, this point would be expounded on enough such that what you’re asserting would fall under idealist philosophies of mind. But you’re not a scholar so I’m not holding my breath for you to discover this on your own. What does it really matter to you anyway?

I’m not going to comment on the rest of your metaphysical drivel, as you have already been exposed by numerous people in the other thread as being an intellectual fraud, and at any rate it would be off-topic.
 Rainiqui
Joined: 10/4/2010
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/15/2010 12:50:36 PM
Oh brother, where do I start???

IgorFrankensteen -

As to the primary thrust that this thread seems to be about, whether or not A PERSON SHOULD be held responsible BY THEIR PEERS (social condemnation IS tantamount to legal action, so you are crossing your OWN line a bit there), for the results of their INACTION, that's a touchy area.


Okay, first of all, in the OP, I am merely asking for opinions. In response to a post from Foshfish, I introduced a NEW dimension - Let's put another spin on it. The man is condemned by his community for his action. Is that condemnation justified? How would you respond to it? The primary thrust of this thread is NOT "whether or not A PERSON SHOULD be held responsible BY THEIR PEERS....". I had introduced the new dimension to hopefully encourage a broadened response. Very few posters responded to this specifically, most just stuck with the original scenario. Ergo, you have misunderstood the primary thrust of the thread because you chose to combine points from the OP and my second post (which was clearly intended to step up the discussion). By virtue of the fact that the overwhelming majority of posts just stuck to the original scenario means that your interpretation of the "primary thrust of the thread" cannot be substantiated.

Actually, I had also hoped that in due course, we would discuss OTHER scenarios, rather than restrict ourselves to the ones I posted. That didn't happen till Kardinal Offishal brought up some other examples in his message # 24. However, it wasn't long before we were back to the OP, in fact it was "thisfast". That is my fault, I should have jumped in right there to encourage discussion of his examples to more broadly discuss ethical philosophy. Mea maxima culpa.

Secondly, social condemnation tantamount to legal action??? Really??? In my second post, I ask for opinions re the man being condemned by HIS COMMUNITY, you know, like his neighbours, etc ? If I had wanted opinions re the man being condemned LEGALLY, I would have said so. Ergo, I am NOT "crossing my own line a bit there". I have neither marked lines nor moved goalposts because I don't have any; I am asking for others' opinions in a thread about ethical philosophy.

Thirdly, you are mistaken in your notion of the man's "inaction". In my second post, I said Let's be a little more specific. Let's say that the man was fully aware of the danger of the situation. Do you think that he was ethically responsible for allowing a tragedy to happen by virtue of the fact that he chose to leave without saying or doing anything? FULLY AWARE of the danger of the situation, the man CHOSE to leave. Umm, that's an action in my book - he chose to leave and do nothing. YMMV


Though you have tried hard to create a scenario that is designed to get a "yes" answer, the QUESTION you posted is a general one.


LOL.... I have NOT "tried hard" to do any such thing. Not even close. Not even close to close. I posted a scenario (which FYI, has been discussed in other philosophy forums) looking for opinions and discussion.


Again, referring to LEGAL cases (since they are REAL examples of REAL instances of this sort of scenario), and I AGREE with those cases, NEGLIGENCE is considered an action of sorts. Willfully tolerating danger to others is legally culpable. Trying to separate legal from moral issues in THIS instance, is actually an attempt to approve or deny apporval to REAL punishments, without using legal authorities. That's a cheat, to my thinking.


Duly noted as your opinion. However, I repeat (yet again), that we are discussing ethical philosophy sans legalities.


But since the only difference bewteen THIS guy, and everyone ELSE at the gathering was that THIS guy was more observant than everyone else, shouldn't EVERYONE at the gathering be held equally responsible (irresponsible?) ? And so should not they EACH, condemn and shun EVERYONE ELSE?


No. This is a thinly disguised slippery slope fallacy. Insufficient information was given to assume that " the only difference bewteen THIS guy, and everyone ELSE at the gathering was that THIS guy was more observant than everyone else....". There is no reason to believe that the actions of the other guests/hosts must inevitably parallel the man's actions without an argument for such a claim, especially in a case like this where a significant number of steps or gradations between the man's reality and the realities of the other guests/hosts may exist.

I need more coffee....
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 47
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/15/2010 4:09:47 PM
"RE Msg: 42 by FoshFish:

Actually, the only wrong thing is that you ought not to be answering the question. You CAN'T answer the question. The question presupposed very clearly, and it is understood, that it is directed at those who can act like not you.
That's against forum rules. You aren't allowed to post a question only to some people here, on ANY basis, only men, only women, or any other condition."

I read your answers, and generally agree with your points, except for the above.

The original forum post did not violate forum rules.

The question was not posted to only a select stratum.

But still, some people can't answer the question in a forum post. The question is directed at everyone, and everyone is allowed to answer the question, no restrictions; but sometimes the answerers' abilities stop them from doing any kind of job at it, so they don't.

In your case I simply wanted to say that you can't answer the question, as you are a type of person who can't answer it. This on the surface may have seemed as an exclusivity condition. However, I was not excluding you, based on your ability even. My comment said, you are unable to answer this question, due to your moral-emotional-intellectual make-up. The question was directed at you as much as at anyone else. There were no inherent or stated requirements that anyone needed to fulfil, as stated by the original poster. However, your inability to find yourself in a moral dilemma, since you always prevent that from happening, as the example of your replied showed (which you negated later, and I accept the negation), does not exclude you or disqualify you in a normative or subjective way, but you just can't answer the question. You are unable to, it's not a forbidding "can't". That would be "thou shall not".
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/15/2010 4:40:46 PM
RE Msg: 47 by FoshFish:
The original forum post did not violate forum rules.

The question was not posted to only a select stratum.

But still, some people can't answer the question in a forum post. The question is directed at everyone, and everyone is allowed to answer the question, no restrictions; but sometimes the answerers' abilities stop them from doing any kind of job at it, so they don't.
That's also against the forum rules. Anyone can answer any question, if they want. Just because you believe that they lack the experience to answer, doesn't mean they cannot answer the question. For instance, if a woman asks if pregnancy is worse than having your wisdom teeth come out, the forum rules allow you to answer, even though you as a man have never been pregnant, and so lack the experience to answer the question.

In your case I simply wanted to say that you can't answer the question, as you are a type of person who can't answer it.
As I explained earlier, the reason why I can answer it, is the same reason that I gave my original post, because I am fully aware that situations occur in which I could just walk away, not realising, and then would feel guilty about it later.

However, your inability to find yourself in a moral dilemma, since you always prevent that from happening, as the example of your replied showed (which you negated later, and I accept the negation), does not exclude you or disqualify you in a normative or subjective way, but you just can't answer the question.
I wrote several different answers for what I would do in several situations, because I know that it's quite easy for situations to go beyond my control. For instance, I can forget to do all that, or I can simply not pay attention to what is around me.

You seem to think that you've understood what I am capable of, by my words. But I am informing you that, by your words, you clearly haven't understood what I am capable of, or you would not have written that.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 49
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/16/2010 9:57:43 AM
"You seem to think that you've understood what I am capable of, by my words. But I am informing you that, by your words, you clearly haven't understood what I am capable of, or you would not have written that. "

Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. However, please note, that this new information has also been conveyed by words. In fact, you stated very correctly that the only way for me to ascertain what you are capable of doing is picked up by my reading your words.

Also, please keep in mind that the possibility exists (albeit with a low probability factor) that in fact I did clearly understand what you are capable of, and it is you that is in a position of misinformation with regards to what you are capable of doing.

I say this because your only way of seeing what I think you are capable of doing is reading my words, and perhaps you are not able to tell what I am capable of doing by reading my words.

If the situation changes, I beg you to please do let me know.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 50
Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?
Posted: 11/16/2010 11:01:54 AM
roflmao....omgosh.... hilarious.... please do continue...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Ethically Speaking, Are We Responsible For What We Fail to Prevent?