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.

[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.

[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?

[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...)

[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.

[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.

[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.