Responsibility

[andrewducker]

This is inspired by the comment here, where ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."

[Poll #619684]

Comments

[andrewducker]

And my answers: In all cases, Not at all responsible.

However, in all cases, _totally_ responsible for making the decision to place themselves there.

I don't like the fact that I might get mugged for my various bits of tech - it's a horrible thing to happen to anyone, and it shouldn't be allowed. In addition, I'm not responsible for the choice of the muggers to mug me - they're responsible for their own actions.

Sadly, lacking complete ignorance of the fact that muggers _do_ exist in the backstreets of Glasgow, I'm totally responsible for any decision I make to walk down those alleys at 2am, waving an MP3 player about.

Those two responsibilities do not cancel each other out.

Everyone is responsible for the choices they make, and while the actions of others do affect what choices we can, and do make, we are still ultimately responsible for our own actions.

On the other hand, chiding me for walking down a back alley when I'm nursing a broken nose and a missing MP3 player is lacking in tact and understanding, if nothing else.

Overall Responsibility

[andrewducker]

Ahem. _Anyway_, the reason for all of this, is that I realised that the confusion over "responsibility for the situation" was that there were two totally separate responsibilities going on, and when someone said that person A was responsible for being in the backstreets in the first place (which they clearly are), people who were sensitive about mugging felt that they were saying that person A was responsible for the actions of the muggers (which they clearly aren't).

This aint maths, people - the Total Responsibility isn't "99% the muggers responsibilities + 1% the responsibility of the person walking down the backstreet" - there _is no_ total responsibility - there's two separate responsibilities that can't be added, subtracted or otherwise merged into one.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Rubbish.

In the first two cases: you/she may be in an area with a poor reputation, but any assault occurs because of the evil intent of the mugger/rapist. It's their responsibility. Just because an area has a dodgy reputation it does not follow that entering it implies one is courting assault, any more than it follows that you are immune from assault or robbery in areas with a reputation for safety. The law doesn't take account of "no-go zones" -- if it did, then the law could not be applied consistently.

In the third case, you not only go into a bar you consider to be dodgy but you deliberately say something you understand to be inflammatory. Any assault is still the fault of the attacker -- but they might argue that you deliberately provoked them. If they can plausibly claim that they wouldn't have attacked you without such provocation, then the blame is shared to some extent.

In the case of the tiger, that's of necessity your responsibility. The tiger is a wild beast and is simply being true to its nature. No human being is exercising control over it. It exists outside the rule of law. When going outside the law, in the absence of any other authority it's your responsibility to look to your own safety.

On the building site ... it's a mixture. On the one hand, walking across a clearly marked building site is reckless: you've been warned by the signs, you shouldn't have done it. On the other hand, the builders have a responsibility -- under health and safety regulations -- not to drop loose objects like bricks.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I think the wording of the questions was wrong to end up with the answer "not at all responsible". I think the question should have said something like "how responsible was he for the tiger eating him" and not "for being eaten" to follow your logic.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

However, in all cases, _totally_ responsible for making the decision to place themselves there.

You're assuming that people have unrestricted freedom of motion -- and that's not always the case.

You're also conspicuously leaving out examples like "A woman goes over to her best friend's house for dinner. How responsible is she when he rapes her?" I don't know if you're leaving out those very common situations because you want to make a point about people going into situations they know are potentially dangerous as opposed to situations they have very little reason to think will prove harmful.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

For all the answers where I put "partially responsible", the perpetrator should still be held criminally liable.

Including the tiger. :)

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

Interesting...

I've answered on the grounds that I think responsibility for violence lies with the perpetrator where they are conscious and decision-making. Tigers and bricks aren't so. But it does make me think... I would say all of these cases are about risk assessment and bad luck rather but have trouble matching this with "to blame" or "responsible" in a consistent way.

[andrewducker]

I'd argue that while tigers aren't conscious at the same level that people are, they still have consciousness. We could argue "The Free Will Of The Tiger", but then we'd have to follow up with "The Free Will Of The Human."

Which is why I deliberately put it in, as a mid point between human attackers and bricks randomly falling on my head.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Andy walks, MP3 player in one hand, mobile phone in the other, down backstreets in an area known to be unpleasant. How responsible is he for being mugged?

And if you're so drunk you can't remember, but the mugger claims you enthusiastically pressed your MP3 player and mobile phone on him, should the mugger be done for theft or allowed to go free on the grounds that your default position is consent?

[andrewducker]

Very tricky one. I'm stuck in exactly the same situation where one person claims I gave it to him, and I claim I didn't. It's down to a jury to examine circumstance and decide who is more believable.

Oh, you may be interested to know that the CPS is demanding a report into the case that was dropped.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Who's letting people go free because the default position is consent? If the hypothetical alleged mugger goes free, it's because there's room for reasonable doubt, i.e. a distinct possibility that they did in fact consent (although they may not have consented sensibly, the receiver might not have been able to tell) - not a default position to fall back on.

There is of course less room for reasonable doubt here than there would have been if Andy (or that drunk, scantily clad girl) had sex with him, because it's well-known that people often decide that they really want to have sex with people they don't really know, especially while drunk... whereas I've never heard of anyone suddenly deciding to give away their tech toys. Still, if the person who lost their gadgets is really so drunk they can't remember a thing about the encounter, I'd say there's room for reasonable doubt - you could at least argue the toss in court.

[drplokta]

It's the same as with the rape case; if Andy wakes up without his MP3 player but he was too drunk to remember how he lost it, you can't prosecute anyone who turns up with it for theft. There could be all sorts of innocent reasons why they have it.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Possessions can be returned in a court if the drunk sobered up and the 'mugger' claimed they were given as gifts. Sex cannot be undone.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

In an ideal world, we could all take whatever actions we wanted without fear of repercussions from people who take advantage of them. However, this ain't an ideal world. While we cannot change the clearly wrong actions of criminals who rape, steal, and murder, we do have complete responsibility for keeping ourselves safe. Therefore I picked "partially responsible" for each case, although I'm leaning more towards "fully responsible" for the brick and the tiger.

[diotina.livejournal.com]

You know, I never thought I would say this - but I think I'm entirely too cynical about humanity to assume that when a mugger/rapist is commiting a crime, it's a choice they're making vs my choice - I'm afraid there will *always* be people in the world who will make that more evil choice, and it's a reality that we sadly have to adapt to, to some extent.
I think, to an extent, the tiger analogy probably works quite well in this context, in that for a large swathe of humanity (including most politicians in power) the capacity to make moral choices is seriously impaired.
I would not, however much I believe that people should make the right moral choice send out my little girl of eight (for example) on dark streets because I *know* there are people who would take advantage of that, and I would take full responsibility for putting her in that position, should anything happen.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between being unwise (doing things with known risks) and being responsible for the consequences, in the sense of to blame for them.

If the bad consequences require another human being to do something bad (ie to attack you in a bad area of town) then you may be deeply stupid to have put yourself in that position, but you are not to blame for their evil actions.

Tigers, as have been mentioned already, do not have a moral responsibility not to eat people, so in that case any responsibility is yours.
(Though this does not apply to any natives of the area whose choices may be limited to either going to gather firewood in the tiger-infested woods or not being able to cook and heat their house...)

[andrewducker]

I don't equate responsibility with blame.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Othen than that I would replace 'require another human being to do something bad' with 'provide an opportunity for another human being ...' I'm pretty much in agreement. I'm seeing a confusion in my LJ FL between 'being responsible for' and 'increasing the risks of'. And I think that confusion is reflected in the Amnesty poll - that at least a proportion of the people who said that they believed women to be partially responsible for being raped if they behaved in certain ways actually meant that they were increasing their risk of being raped.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

"In the old days of anarchy you were given freedom to; now you are being given freedom from."

Police states where this sort of issue doesn't arise for the win!

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

People are scum. People are lying, cheating, stealing, murdering scum. They have dark and terrible hearts and twisted minds turned to nothing but hate.

Not all of them, but again and again this is borne out. Watch the news.

If you are with friends, if you are with people you know in a safe place then maybe, just maybe, you can let your guard down and be safe and then, if something bad happens, you're not responsible. Because there was nothing you could have done.

But if you give people who you don't know an opportunity, if you get drunk and aren't in control, if you present yourself as a target, or if you even just give -other- people the option of making you a target, then you are at least in part responsible. Because you could take precautions to ensure bad things didn't happen to you? And why didn't you? Because you're stupid. Yes, there will always be things that you can't avoid. It's a terrible fact of life. That is bad, and sometimes you aren't responsible.

But if you happily get too drunk to stop things happening, or wander calmly through somewhere you -know- to be dangerous without a thought for your safety... then you're voluntarily giving up your safety.

When you drive your car, if you don't do up your seatbelt, you are making a choice to go flying through the window if you crash. You don't WANT to crash, but if you do.. you're choosing the painful option. When you KNOW there's a safer option.

You can blame society if you like, in that we have a weak and indulgent society that freely allows crime, but you can't blame everyone except yourself. The first lesson is not to be a target, is not to make yourself an object for someone else's hate or greed.

Vulnerability is a choice. There are things you can do to avoid it. If you do not do these things then you have made a choice. Ignoring the choice is sheer stupidity.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Pretty much on my thoughttrain that one.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

In all of the cases above "Partially Responsible". Why? Because everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions. What happens to you, if as a direct result of your own actions, is at least in part your own fault. You cannot complain if you put yourself in danger when you are a victim. In all of the cases above is it without argument that the people there have put themselves in a position to have someone or something negative have an impact upon them. If they had have done things differently, like got a taxi, or kept to the main roads, or not been so ignorant (ignorance kills like no other) etc then they would not have come to harm. Theres common sense lacking in all the situations above.

That said, are any of them guilty of any of the violence or acts? No. They are the innocent party, if clueless. But as George Carlin put it, "There's no such thing as an innocent. As a human being, when you're born until the day you die, you're just fucking guilty my friends. You're fucking GUILTY".

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between accidents and crimes.

[andrewducker]

Nope, I have no such problem. Would you care to explain why you think I do?

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

I think the result can almost entirely be attributed to people mistaking idiocy for responsibility. Never attribute to malice that which may be attributed to incompetence....

[darkoshi]

Those are certainly some thought-provoking questions. I'm not sure how I would answer, since I'm not quite sure as to what "responsibility" really means in these situations. However, when I think about these situations worded oppositely, for example, someone does something potentially dangerous, and nothing bad happens, then how responsible are they for something bad not having happened? In that kind of situation, I would say they aren't responsible... they didn't have any control over whether or not something bad happened... and so I was thinking, maybe even when something bad happens, they still didn't have control and therefore weren't at all responsible either.

But then I was thinking, if someone tries to kill you, and you don't die, they aren't responsible for you not dying, yet if you had died, they would be responsible. So that means my previous thought doesn't necessarily hold either. It's enough to give me a headache. But I'm going to stop thinking about it, so that it won't. If I did think about it more, and if I got a headache, would you be responsible? No, I guess you wouldn't. You'd be partially the cause of it, but not responsible, since it was my own choice to continue thinking about it... Would I be responsible? Hmm. Nope, I am going to stop thinking about this. Yep.

30 % stupid

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

i think the whole problem is the phrasing of the question, responsibilites can only be understood in the context of rights: try rephrasing it like this:

"A woman walks, scantily clad, down backstreets in an area known to be unpleasant: has she forfeited her right not to be raped?

Anyone care to answer yes to that? Cause thats what your saying if you ascribe her "responsibility".

besides the idea of being responsible for rape is an oxymoron, if one was ABLE TO RESPOND it wouldnt be rape. Depressing to see that your poll produces the same proportion of stupidity as the original.

Re: 30 % stupid

[andrewducker]

When it comes to rights I fall into the Benthamist camp - I just don't find them meaningful in any sense other than as idealist views of what a particular person's ideal society would look like. I do believe in responsibility though.

So I don't tend to have a problem discussing responsibility outside of the context of rights :->