Old 05-29-2007, 12:15 AM   #1
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Yeah, I guess I needed to make a topic like this... so, here it is.

Warning: Needless hypothetical situation as vehicle for concept follows.

A person walks into a store and browses around, as people frequently do. He sees a product for sale and contemplates buying it, but ultimately decides not to do so, leaving the store. The store owner retains the product and the person retains his money. Now, it is surely true that the decision to refrain from the purchase constitutes an action, but an action in what sense? Can we claim it is an action which is causal in nature? There seem to be two states of affairs which correspond to the decision, namely the retainment of money on the part of the would-be shopper and the retainment of the product on the part of the would-be seller. However, the money was in the hands of the shopper to begin with, and the product the hands of the merchant. Nothing has changed as a result of this action.

Now, let's look at another situation. In addition to the first person walking into the store, another person does so as well. They have the observable intent of buying the product. However, if this person buys the product they will use to to, I don't know, let's say to make all mashed potatoes slightly less delicious tasting. In this instance, our not quite propagandistic nameless scenario person has to decide whether to buy the product before the other person, or to let events take their course. He chooses the second option. Is he responsible for the actions taken by our mild annoyance causing nameless scenario villain? He didn't fulfill any active role in establishing conditions which would lead to the actions of the second person. All he did was refrain from rearranging conditions to prevent a course of action.

So, the question which in this scenario is grave as gravy is, did our random person violate a duty or the rights of others by conscious inaction, and if so how is this derived?

Last edited by Kilroy_x; 05-29-2007 at 12:17 AM..
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 12:42 AM   #2
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Some questions for clarification:

1/ In your scenario, did the second person announce his intention to the first person to buy the item and his purpose in doing so?

2/ In your scenario, is there only one remaining copy of the product that the first is indifferent about and the second is desirous of obtaining?

My stance on inaction being an action has always only applied to situations in which the person is both aware of the consequences of the situation at hand, and is also aware of their own ability to effect the situation, so I would like those points clarified before I respond fully.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 12:46 AM   #3
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
1/ In your scenario, did the second person announce his intention to the first person to buy the item and his purpose in doing so?
I'll just say he did, but in the fashion most epistemically proper I'll also say there's a chance person #1 misinterpreted.

Quote:
2/ In your scenario, is there only one remaining copy of the product that the first is indifferent about and the second is desirous of obtaining?
Let's just say yes.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 12:52 AM   #4
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Okay, so we have the situation set up like this:

A) Person 1 goes to the store, thinking maybe he'll buy an X, maybe he won't.
B) Person 2 is there at the store and says "Hey, I'm totally going to go buy an X and use it to make all mashed potatoes slightly less delicious tasting"
C) Person 1 goes into the store, and sees that there is in fact, only 1 X left.

Now, at this point, you seem to want to say that he has two choices: a) Buy the X, or b) refrain from buying the X. Full stop.

To me, he has two choices also: a) Buy the X, knowing that it will stymie the plan of Person 2, and b) Refrain from buying the X, knowing that having done so, Person 2 will buy it and use it to make all mashed potatoes slightly less delicious tasting.

In this situation, since person 1 is in a position where he understands the consequences of acting and not acting, and has the ability to make a choice which will directly effect the outcome of the situation, I would feel that if he buys the X, he is at least in some small way responsible for mashed potatoes remaining as delicious tasting as they do, and that if he refrains from buying the X, he is at least in some small way responsible for mashed potatoes becoming slightly less delicious tasting.

Don't think that when I say "responsible" I mean -fully- responsible, or even -mostly- responsible. A great deal of the responsibility lies on Person 2 for using the X to make mashed potatoes slightly less delicious, a certain small amount lies on the shopkeeper for stocking an X in the first place, and to a small degree, person A does (to me) have to acknowledge that when he stands there looking at the X, knowing full well the consequences of acting and not acting, that some degree of the consequences are his to enjoy.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 01:00 AM   #5
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Here's the problem. While I would agree that by taking action, he holds some responsible for the continuation of current levels of mashed potato deliciousness, by refraining from action I don't see how he can be. How can a person be responsible for another persons actions? At what point does another persons action cease to be a product of their (perhaps less than) free will and begin to be a product of your (perhaps also less than) free will? While I can see this being the case in at least some instances hypothetically, I'm not sure how an unexercised will can be responsible for anything. IE, there's no element of causality in inaction.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 01:07 AM   #6
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

But see, by standing there -knowing- what will happen if he doesn't buy the item, by not buying the item he is tacitly going along with the consequences of not buying it.

If he had never had any intention of buying it at all, he may not even have gone to see if there were any, but since he was already considering buying it, was made aware of the consequences of buying or not buying, I can't see how he -isn't- at least partially responsible for the consequences.

Bear in mind the extent to which I'm minimizing his responsibility in this particular instance, I'm just putting it at non-zero.

Lets cast the situation in a differant light: Say Person A -hates- mashed potatoes, always has, always will, and when he gets there to buy the X, and sees there is only one, thinks to himself "No way am I buying that, I can't wait for mashed potatoes to become slightly less delicious, smug side dish"

He is -still- choosing inaction, but in this case, he has deliberately done to -because- he wants the consequences. Does he bear any responsibility in this case to you? In both cases he had the chance to buy it or not, and by not, has enabled the consequences.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 01:18 AM   #7
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
But see, by standing there -knowing- what will happen if he doesn't buy the item, by not buying the item he is tacitly going along with the consequences of not buying it.
So? There still isn't a causal connection. Thinking evil thoughts while standing next to a person doing evil things doesn't make you responsible.

Quote:
If he had never had any intention of buying it at all, he may not even have gone to see if there were any, but since he was already considering buying it, was made aware of the consequences of buying or not buying, I can't see how he -isn't- at least partially responsible for the consequences.
Is it his responsibility to maintain the deliciousness of Mashed Potatoes, or to otherwise actively prevent transgressions of this or any sort? If not, how has he done anything wrong? And if "responsibility" is not meant in terms of right and wrong, how is it meant?

Quote:
Bear in mind the extent to which I'm minimizing his responsibility in this particular instance, I'm just putting it at non-zero.
If we were to actually try to quantify guilt, which would be impossible, some amount would likely go to the maker of the X, some amount to the Merchant, and some amount to the people, if any, who instilled in person #2 the desire for the X or the desire to use the X in the way described.

Quote:
Lets cast the situation in a differant light: Say Person A -hates- mashed potatoes, always has, always will, and when he gets there to buy the X, and sees there is only one, thinks to himself "No way am I buying that, I can't wait for mashed potatoes to become slightly less delicious, smug side dish"

He is -still- choosing inaction, but in this case, he has deliberately done to -because- he wants the consequences. Does he bear any responsibility in this case to you? In both cases he had the chance to buy it or not, and by not, has enabled the consequences.
No, this revised case also doesn't contain an element of causality. The consequences were pre-enabled, in either instance he just refrained from disabling them.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 02:03 AM   #8
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
So? There still isn't a causal connection. Thinking evil thoughts while standing next to a person doing evil things doesn't make you responsible.
I'd argue that standing next to a person doing evil things and knowing full way that you have a guarenteed way to stop them, and deciding not to stop them does in fact make you responsible -to some degree-

Quote:
And if "responsibility" is not meant in terms of right and wrong, how is it meant?

If we were to actually try to quantify guilt, which would be impossible, some amount would likely go to the maker of the X, some amount to the Merchant, and some amount to the people, if any, who instilled in person #2 the desire for the X or the desire to use the X in the way described.
This -is- what I mean by responsible. In the small ways in which each of the people who took part in Person 2's plan to use X, knowing how X would be used, and electing to stand aside and let Person 2 carry out his plan, they are in those same small ways responsible.

The distinction of "responsible" in a philosophical context is the same as how "significant" merely means "has -some- place in the situation, from the minisculely small to the incredibly large" and "consequences" merely means "Anything, good or bad or neutral that results from an action" my distinction of "responsible" is "Has -some- degree of effect on the outcome"

Quote:
No, this revised case also doesn't contain an element of causality. The consequences were pre-enabled, in either instance he just refrained from disabling them.
See, this surprises me, I was really thinking that when presented with a case in which the person -clearly preferred- a specific outcome, that by enabling that outcome, you would grant them some degree of responsibility.

I think the difference between us in this case is that your entire thought process seems to me to be "If, after the fact, I went back and removed the person in question, would the outcome change?" And if no, then the person is in no way responsible for any of the consequences of the action.

Where I differ is that as soon as a person -can- effect the situation, is aware that they can, and are aware of the consequences of either possible choice, they aren't outside the situation anymore, they are as inextrciably in the situation, as Person 2 and the X are, because now instead of what you present as "person 1 buys or doesn't" and "Person 2 wants to buy" I see "Person 1 can buy, denying Person 2 the chance, or Person 1 can refrain from buying, allowing person 2 the chance" as one causal situation.

And you'll note that I said 'person 1 can -refrain- from buying' where refrain is defined as "To hold oneself back" To me, that is unavoidably an action. You aren't "nothing" you are "deliberately, purposfully -choosing- to hold yourself back" Deciding, taking the action of "walking away from the X" is an action, and the consequences, even if only in a tiny way, are still partially yours.

Last edited by devonin; 05-29-2007 at 02:06 AM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 11:07 AM   #9
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
I'd argue that standing next to a person doing evil things and knowing full way that you have a guarenteed way to stop them, and deciding not to stop them does in fact make you responsible -to some degree-
How? It seems your formula is proximity+knowledge=guilt. I don't understand how this is possible without either A: inaction being a violation of duty, or B: inaction containing an element of causality. In this case inaction doesn't seem to meet the criterion of A or B.

Quote:
This -is- what I mean by responsible. In the small ways in which each of the people who took part in Person 2's plan to use X, knowing how X would be used, and electing to stand aside and let Person 2 carry out his plan, they are in those same small ways responsible.
So the element of causality is contained in the individual. Their ability to prevent the situation becomes an action to promote the situation whenever they contradict taking a possible action that they knew they were capable of taking.

I'm sorry, but that's no less nonsensical.

Quote:
The distinction of "responsible" in a philosophical context is the same as how "significant" merely means "has -some- place in the situation, from the minisculely small to the incredibly large" and "consequences" merely means "Anything, good or bad or neutral that results from an action" my distinction of "responsible" is "Has -some- degree of effect on the outcome"
Something can't have an effect without a causal element. Anyways, let's look at potential applications for this train-wreck of reason. How many things do you know about right now that you could conceivably make a difference about? The genocide in Darfur? The AIDS epidemic? Surely you wouldn't argue that despite knowing about these and despite there being ways to help lessen them you aren't responsible because of something as trivial as lack of proximity or the scope of the issue?

Quote:
See, this surprises me, I was really thinking that when presented with a case in which the person -clearly preferred- a specific outcome, that by enabling that outcome, you would grant them some degree of responsibility.
The problem is they haven't enabled the situation, they've just refrained from disabling it.

Quote:
I think the difference between us in this case is that your entire thought process seems to me to be "If, after the fact, I went back and removed the person in question, would the outcome change?" And if no, then the person is in no way responsible for any of the consequences of the action.
That's the long and short of it, yes.

Quote:
Where I differ is that as soon as a person -can- effect the situation, is aware that they can, and are aware of the consequences of either possible choice, they aren't outside the situation anymore, they are as inextrciably in the situation, as Person 2 and the X are, because now instead of what you present as "person 1 buys or doesn't" and "Person 2 wants to buy" I see "Person 1 can buy, denying Person 2 the chance, or Person 1 can refrain from buying, allowing person 2 the chance" as one causal situation.
No, the linking of person 1 and person 2 requires adding a different causal link. Seeing as how it's impossible to cause a preexisting condition, and seeing as how the problem stems from the preexisting condition and this is where the causal link comes from, person 1 is not guilty of taking any causal action. Not severing a causal link isn't equivalent to a causal action.

Quote:
And you'll note that I said 'person 1 can -refrain- from buying' where refrain is defined as "To hold oneself back" To me, that is unavoidably an action.
It is, just not an action with causality.

Quote:
You aren't "nothing" you are "deliberately, purposfully -choosing- to hold yourself back" Deciding, taking the action of "walking away from the X" is an action,
So?

Quote:
and the consequences, even if only in a tiny way, are still partially yours.
There are no consequences. The action isn't causal in nature.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 11:37 AM   #10
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

It really just seems that the terms we are both using commonly in our posts are simply being defined in different ways by you than by me. As long as the words I'm using have a meaning for me that differs from yours, and vice versa, we're going to keep circling each other without any satisfactory conclusion. I'll respond anyway, and while I think we are making some progress on seeing clearly where the other one is coming from, I suspect as we go, that we're going to end up at some sort of "Well, the way you define the words, yes you're right, but I define them in a different way" situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
How? It seems your formula is proximity+knowledge=guilt. I don't understand how this is possible without either A: inaction being a violation of duty, or B: inaction containing an element of causality. In this case inaction doesn't seem to meet the criterion of A or B.
My formula is knowledge+opportunity=responsibility. "Guilt" has nothing to do with this situation in the slightest. Guilt is a negatively connotated word. The consequences of your actions don't always need to be bad you know. As for the rest: I'd say that 'A' can absolutely apply. Depending on your partciular oulook on the taste of mashed potatoes, if you personally have a desire that mashed potatoes remain as delicious tasting as they are, then I would in fact argue that you therefore have a duty to take the step that you know you are able to take, for which you know the consequences, to prevent mashed potatoes from becoming less delicious tasting. If you personally have a desire that mashed potatoes become less delicious tasting, then I would in fact argue that you therefore have a duty to take the step you are able to take, for which you know the consequences, to allow mashed potatoes to become less delicious tasting.

If you want them to stay how they are, but decide not to buy the X and prevent their reduction in deliciousity, then to me yes, you have committed a violation of duty, albiet a very small one.

Quote:
So the element of causality is contained in the individual. Their ability to prevent the situation becomes an action to promote the situation whenever they contradict taking a possible action that they knew they were capable of taking.
I'm sorry, but that's no less nonsensical.
If you have the ability to -effect- a situation (Whether to enable or disable) and sufficient knowledge of the consequences (good or bad) to make a decision about whether you would see the situation enabled or disabled, you have a responsibility to take the action in line with your beliefs on the situation, and whichever action you take, you bear some small degree of responsibility, if just because you -could- have taken the other action but deliberately refrained from doing so.



Quote:
Something can't have an effect without a causal element. Anyways, let's look at potential applications for this train-wreck of reason. How many things do you know about right now that you could conceivably make a difference about? The genocide in Darfur? The AIDS epidemic? Surely you wouldn't argue that despite knowing about these and despite there being ways to help lessen them you aren't responsible because of something as trivial as lack of proximity or the scope of the issue?
No, I wouldn't argue that I have no responsibility because of lack of proximity. And I do in fact assign a small degree of reponsibility not for their causes (which I can't think of any way I could have prevented, not even being -aware- of them until after they'd happened) but for not taking any steps available to me to try and help. You're still taking the words in a much larger scope than I am. You're associating 'consequences' with 'guilt' and assigning a much larger amount of responsibility to people for things where that isn't warranted.

Quote:
No, the linking of person 1 and person 2 requires adding a different causal link. Seeing as how it's impossible to cause a preexisting condition, and seeing as how the problem stems from the preexisting condition and this is where the causal link comes from, person 1 is not guilty of taking any causal action. Not severing a causal link isn't equivalent to a causal action.
If a child picks up a pencil and paper, and starts drawing and their parent takes the pencil away, then the parent is in some way (in this case a fairly direct and major way) responsible for the picture not being finished. I merely say that if the parent -decides- to not take the pencil away, then they are in some way (not as much in this case, but still some) responsible for the picture being finished.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 01:34 PM   #11
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
How? It seems your formula is proximity+knowledge=guilt. I don't understand how this is possible without either A: inaction being a violation of duty, or B: inaction containing an element of causality. In this case inaction doesn't seem to meet the criterion of A or B.
Well, according to the law, it's known as being an accomplice to a crime. One can be committed of a crime by mere association, even if they didn't engage in the crime, assuming they could have taken action to prevent the crime from being committed.

Expanding on your example: If you know that a certain product would case undesirable outcomes for a lot of people, and you have it in your power to prevent that product from falling into the hands of someone who would use it, then I'd say it's your responsibility to do so.

It's hard to get too excited about mashed potatoes and therefore difficult to put things in perspective (as far as I know, there is no law against making mashed potatoes more bland than they already are)...but if the situation is more...life and death, with more dire consequences, it's easier to see.

Hypothetically, say there is someone in a room who will suffocate if you don't release them by pulling a lever. You have two options, pull the lever and free them, or don't and let them die. In this case, conscious inaction is known as involuntary manslaughter (recluse disregard for human life, knowledge of circumstances that would reasonably cause a person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others). In this case, inaction is an action. It requires conscious effort, and last time I checked, thinking is an action.



Quote:
Something can't have an effect without a causal element. Anyways, let's look at potential applications for this train-wreck of reason. How many things do you know about right now that you could conceivably make a difference about? The genocide in Darfur? The AIDS epidemic? Surely you wouldn't argue that despite knowing about these and despite there being ways to help lessen them you aren't responsible because of something as trivial as lack of proximity or the scope of the issue?
In what way would it be my responsibility to end the genocide in Darfur? In what position am I to trump the in-action (action) of a sovereign nation? Do I have it in my power to single handedly end the genocide? F*ck yeah something as "trivial" as a lack of proximity is influencing my conscious inaction not to do anything about it simply because 6000+ miles separate me from Darfur. It doesn't concern me. I don't know anyone who is affected by it. That may sound in sensitive, but I have my own life, with my own problems. I don't need to worry about some piss-poor third world nation that has absolutely no relevance in my life. I neither have the time nor the energy to put a stop to the genocide. Besides, by placing responsibility on me, you are removing the responsibility from those are responsible. I'm not saying that anyone was, but I'm covering all my bases here.

Likewise, in what way is it my responsibility to end the AIDS epidemic? Again, I don't have the time, money or knowledge to invent the cure for AIDS. I don't have AIDS, I don't know anyone who has AIDS.

Last edited by jewpinthethird; 05-29-2007 at 01:47 PM..
jewpinthethird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 03:29 PM   #12
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
It really just seems that the terms we are both using commonly in our posts are simply being defined in different ways by you than by me. As long as the words I'm using have a meaning for me that differs from yours, and vice versa, we're going to keep circling each other without any satisfactory conclusion. I'll respond anyway, and while I think we are making some progress on seeing clearly where the other one is coming from, I suspect as we go, that we're going to end up at some sort of "Well, the way you define the words, yes you're right, but I define them in a different way" situation.
Your use of words is an equivocation. I'll show you what I mean.

Quote:
My formula is knowledge+opportunity=responsibility. "Guilt" has nothing to do with this situation in the slightest. Guilt is a negatively connotated word. The consequences of your actions don't always need to be bad you know.
We're discussing the issue as it supposedly appears as a problem, therefore the pejorative is perfectly contextually appropriate.

Quote:
As for the rest: I'd say that 'A' can absolutely apply. Depending on your partciular oulook on the taste of mashed potatoes, if you personally have a desire that mashed potatoes remain as delicious tasting as they are, then I would in fact argue that you therefore have a duty to take the step that you know you are able to take, for which you know the consequences, to prevent mashed potatoes from becoming less delicious tasting. If you personally have a desire that mashed potatoes become less delicious tasting, then I would in fact argue that you therefore have a duty to take the step you are able to take, for which you know the consequences, to allow mashed potatoes to become less delicious tasting.
In other words, you're arguing that it's possible for duties to be both non-universal and conflicting. Such a position leaves no room for moral evaluation because any action could be shown appropriate in the context of a given assumed duty.

Quote:
If you want them to stay how they are, but decide not to buy the X and prevent their reduction in deliciousity, then to me yes, you have committed a violation of duty, albiet a very small one.
You've violated a duty to yourself, perhaps, but I wonder if this is even possible by definition. If you decide you want to not purchase the X, you obviously value your money or what-have-you higher than the deliciousness of mashed potatoes. This is true by definition.

Quote:
If you have the ability to -effect- a situation (Whether to enable or disable) and sufficient knowledge of the consequences (good or bad) to make a decision about whether you would see the situation enabled or disabled, you have a responsibility to take the action in line with your beliefs on the situation, and whichever action you take, you bear some small degree of responsibility, if just because you -could- have taken the other action but deliberately refrained from doing so.
What degree of responsibility then? Let's just assume for the argument this is true, what degree of responsibility does the person hold? If we look at things as if they are quantifiable, which again they really aren't, it seems as though 100% of the total amount of responsibility for the outcome can already be attributed to other people. Why? Because we know that the outcome has to have a causality, and we know there is no causality in the action taken by person #1. So in terms of causal responsibility 100% of it is accounted for already. Now, is there really any other form of responsibility? Responsibility derived from duty, perhaps. Otherwise, lack of causal connection means there is no intersection between action and outcome, and no intersection means no relationship.

Quote:
No, I wouldn't argue that I have no responsibility because of lack of proximity. And I do in fact assign a small degree of reponsibility not for their causes (which I can't think of any way I could have prevented, not even being -aware- of them until after they'd happened) but for not taking any steps available to me to try and help. You're still taking the words in a much larger scope than I am. You're associating 'consequences' with 'guilt' and assigning a much larger amount of responsibility to people for things where that isn't warranted.
"guilt" isn't a quantitative statement either, it's just a pejorative statement, and it's perfectly contextually appropriate. How do you suggest we determine what degree of responsibility exists? How do we determine the meaning
in a moral sense of this level of responsibility, and the appropriate action to take resultingly? You've eliminated your connection to the causality of the issue, so how can you be responsible in any sense for the outcome?

Quote:
If a child picks up a pencil and paper, and starts drawing and their parent takes the pencil away, then the parent is in some way (in this case a fairly direct and major way) responsible for the picture not being finished. I merely say that if the parent -decides- to not take the pencil away, then they are in some way (not as much in this case, but still some) responsible for the picture being finished.
In the first case the parent is responsible, in the second they are not, unless by inaction they violated a duty which was expected of them and which was taken on voluntarily by them.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 03:45 PM   #13
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewpinthethird View Post
Well, according to the law, it's known as being an accomplice to a crime. One can be committed of a crime by mere association, even if they didn't engage in the crime, assuming they could have taken action to prevent the crime from being committed.
The law is not the issue because the law is just as capable of being wrong as the human beings who make it. In this case the law is wrong.

Quote:
Expanding on your example: If you know that a certain product would case undesirable outcomes for a lot of people, and you have it in your power to prevent that product from falling into the hands of someone who would use it, then I'd say it's your responsibility to do so.
Why?

Quote:
It's hard to get too excited about mashed potatoes and therefore difficult to put things in perspective (as far as I know, there is no law against making mashed potatoes more bland than they already are)...but if the situation is more...life and death, with more dire consequences, it's easier to see.
That's nonsensical. The exact same issue only becomes a problem when your emotions play a higher role in evaluations? Gee, that's convenient.

Quote:
Hypothetically, say there is someone in a room who will suffocate if you don't release them by pulling a lever. You have two options, pull the lever and free them, or don't and let them die. In this case, conscious inaction is known as involuntary manslaughter (recluse disregard for human life, knowledge of circumstances that would reasonably cause a person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others). In this case, inaction is an action. It requires conscious effort, and last time I checked, thinking is an action.
Thinking is an action, but not an action that intersects with the causal chain responsible for the persons death. This situation may reveal a severe fault in character, but it doesn't reveal guilt.

Quote:
In what way would it be my responsibility to end the genocide in Darfur? In what position am I to trump the in-action (action) of a sovereign nation?
It's not hard to make a difference. Donate money. Raise public awareness. Join a mercenary group. You would be capable of doing any of these. This of course brings up another question, if you are capable of effecting change in any number of ways, doesn't this capability make you responsible for taking the action which effects the maximum amount of change?

Quote:
Do I have it in my power to single handedly end the genocide?
It's not a package deal, we could analyze the problem as the life of each individual person within the package, or populace, as being threatened. In this case, given that you could most assuredly effect change in some way, given that you don't makes you responsible for at least the part of the outcome you could have effected.

Quote:
F*ck yeah something as "trivial" as a lack of proximity is influencing my conscious inaction not to do anything about it simply because 6000+ miles separate me from Darfur. It doesn't concern me. I don't know anyone who is affected by it. That may sound in sensitive, but I have my own life, with my own problems. I don't need to worry about some piss-poor third world nation that has absolutely no relevance in my life. I neither have the time nor the energy to put a stop to the genocide. Besides, by placing responsibility on me, you are removing the responsibility from those are responsible. I'm not saying that anyone was, but I'm covering all my bases here.
Oh wow, so now you argue that responsibility within capability only extends as far as you care to have it? How wonderfully impoverished. It isn't hard to donate money. Words are cheap as well. To the extreme case though, airplane tickets aren't hard to acquire. Circumvention of border patrols isn't difficult either. Trekking through forests carrying supplies of food and armaments is perfectly possible. If we extend your responsibilities as far as your abilities, you are guilty of the deaths of millions, but as it stands you aren't. You're just guilty of extremely poor character.

I don't place responsibility on you, that's the whole point of my position.

Quote:
Likewise, in what way is it my responsibility to end the AIDS epidemic? Again, I don't have the time, money or knowledge to invent the cure for AIDS. I don't have AIDS, I don't know anyone who has AIDS.
In other words, your responsibilities now only extend as far as the people you know or like. Great. The issue isn't your ability to cure aids, it's your ability to effect change at all and your inaction in spite of this. No matter how inept a person is, if we were to follow devonin's position to its end then that person would be responsible for the change they didn't effect, and correspondingly the result of the unchanged state of affairs.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 04:08 PM   #14
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
We're discussing the issue as it supposedly appears as a problem, therefore the pejorative is perfectly contextually appropriate.
We're discussing it that way because that was the example you chose to put forward, and we are discussing in the context of your example. You could just have easily used an example like the one at the bottom of my previous post where the "inaction" has the connotations of an observedly -good- consequence.

Quote:
You've violated a duty to yourself, perhaps, but I wonder if this is even possible by definition. If you decide you want to not purchase the X, you obviously value your money or what-have-you higher than the deliciousness of mashed potatoes. This is true by definition.
I would argue that -all- of the duties I have chosen to instill into my life come from myself. If I have a duty to uphold the law, it is because I have decided, myself, that I consider the law worth upholding. If my upholding of the law turns out to have 'bad' consequences (Say...because the law was mistaken) then I feel I bear some responsibility for those bad consequences.

If I value my money higher than I value the deliciousness of mashed potatos, then I will likely choose to save my money rather than buy X and prevent the consequences of person 2 buying X. I still say that you therefore bear some responsibility for the consequences, but freely admit that the degree is quite small, and person 1 probably won't -care- that they bear some responsibilty, but that doesn't mean they -dont-


Quote:
What degree of responsibility then? Let's just assume for the argument this is true, what degree of responsibility does the person hold? If we look at things as if they are quantifiable, which again they really aren't, it seems as though 100% of the total amount of responsibility for the outcome can already be attributed to other people. Why? Because we know that the outcome has to have a causality, and we know there is no causality in the action taken by person #1. So in terms of causal responsibility 100% of it is accounted for already. Now, is there really any other form of responsibility? Responsibility derived from duty, perhaps. Otherwise, lack of causal connection means there is no intersection between action and outcome, and no intersection means no relationship.
There -was- 100% of it accounted for, until a new variable was entered into the situation, as a new person was suddenly able to directly effect the outcome of the situation. If you insist on quantifying which, as we both know, isn't something you can do in any useful way, it doesn't matter whether they bear 99.9999999% or 0.0000000001% of the total "responsibility" based on the situation for my point to stand. it needs simply be >0



Quote:
"guilt" isn't a quantitative statement either, it's just a pejorative statement, and it's perfectly contextually appropriate. How do you suggest we determine what degree of responsibility exists? How do we determine the meaning in a moral sense of this level of responsibility, and the appropriate action to take resultingly? You've eliminated your connection to the causality of the issue, so how can you be responsible in any sense for the outcome?
The meaning in a moral sense, of that level of responsibility is dependant entirely on the moral views of the person. If, like you, you feel that if you had no causal effect on what "would have" happened had you simply not been present, I assume you would assign -no- moral significance to the level of responsibility I am talking about. if, however, you were someone who would find meaning in the statement "All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" then you might indeed think that your "inaction" did in fact make you responsible in some small way.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 01:20 PM   #15
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Well, I don't know what to say, except that you seem to be unwilling to tackle the issue of morality except from a very foolish angle. Starting with emotions and then trying to express them in terms of logic or reason isn't actually searching for truth, it's just searching for self-justification. Or as Nietzsche put it, why should it be so convenient that what you feel is right overlaps with what actually is right?

Even if I were to accept your system, it doesn't seem to have any room for evaluating morality. It ultimately collapses in much the same way as Perspectivism.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 06:24 PM   #16
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

The problem is that you seem to assume that in my system, all this being responsible for things must result in horrible self-loathing and guilt.

There is -plenty- of room in this system for just not giving a **** about the fact that you bear some responsibility for things. Sometimes people take -credit- for the contributions they make via "Not interfering" just as much as they try to say that because they didn't interfere they deserve no credit at all.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 10:20 PM   #17
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

I don't care one way or another whether responsibility entails moral responsibility, although given that this was the assumption I had of what the discussion was about I'm sort of thrown off. I also don't care whether people think themselves responsible or not responsible, only whether they are. I don't think there is a connection between perceived and actual responsibility, causality is the only link in responsibility, perception and emotion play no role.

At this point though I wonder if there's even a point to arguing, because you're saying "There is some, necessarily undefined level of responsibility applicable to all existing entities for all existing situations, which may or may not have a link to some, necessarily undefined level of moral responsibility, which may or may not allow for moral evaluation based on personal values, in a way that remains open-ended and undefined".

How could such a statement even pretend to have substance to refute?
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:13 PM   #18
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

If you grant, for a moment, that inaction as I defined it -does- count as an action, which allows for your particular kind of feeling of responsibility; can you at least see how in such an instance, the degree to which you then are responsible is irellevant, and the degree to which you may or may not feel morally good or bad about it becomes irellevant in the statement "I am responsible"?

If you can see how given that circumstance (even though I know you disagree with that circumstance) your summation of as
Quote:
"There is some, necessarily undefined level of responsibility applicable to all existing entities for all existing situations, which may or may not have a link to some, necessarily undefined level of moral responsibility, which may or may not allow for moral evaluation based on personal values, in a way that remains open-ended and undefined".
actually boils down to "There is some level of responsibility applicable to people who are aware of a situation, have the power to effect it, and are aware of the consequences of doing so" then perhaps I have some miniscule hope of explaining my position in a way that you will at least understand, even if you continue to vehemantly disagree.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:33 PM   #19
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Intuition is a type of "understanding" I would prefer to rid myself of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
If you grant, for a moment, that inaction as I defined it -does- count as an action, which allows for your particular kind of feeling of responsibility;
It's not a feeling of responsibility. How many times do I have to say human emotions have nothing to do with responsibility, only a direct cause/effect relationship is behind responsibility.

Quote:
can you at least see how in such an instance, the degree to which you then are responsible is irellevant, and the degree to which you may or may not feel morally good or bad about it becomes irellevant in the statement "I am responsible"?
No; What?

Look, I understand what you're trying to say, it just isn't something which can be substantiated. the notion itself isn't particularly offensive to me, although what the notion is used for seems problematic, but my main concern is that there is no way to give your position any foundation outside of language, and while part of the problem may simply be that we're using different language, my language at least pretends a distinction between the real and the ideal and some applicability of its descriptive function to the state of affairs of reality. A reality. A real one.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:36 PM   #20
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Well, I mean it comes down to the fact that I consider knowing you can act, and choosing not to, to be a deliberate -action- and like all actions, has consequences.

To me, you're putting the cart before the horse and saying "Unless there are -outside consequences- you haven't acted" Where to me, the actions you -enabled- by -choosing- to not act -are- the consequences of that action.

Basically, I consider "refraining from disabling" and "enabling" to be functionally the same thing, and you do not.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution