The Ethic Question

Alright, I was expected to write a fluent text about the ethic question "In how far is a man responsible for his acts?" (in Dutch, of course :p ). I obeyed and thought you might want to read it too. It's stuff worth discussing, in my opinion.

Dutch version:

In hoever is een mens verantwoordelijk voor zijn daden?

Elke 'daad' die we begaan vereist een bepaalde redenering erachter: ik ga eten omdat ik honger heb, ik sla iemand dood als ik daar behoefte toe zou hebben, al was het maar om opgekropte aggressie uit te laten.
Beide daden werden voorafgegaan door een logische redenering, al zal de eerste daad hoogstwaarschijnlijk meer aanvaardt worden door de maatschappij dan de tweede.
In beide gevallen zijn we verantwoordelijk voor ons gedrag:

We hebben zelf gekozen om te eten, als we het eten dat voor iemand anders voorbestemd was gestolen hebben, dan moeten we daarvoor opdraaien, omdat het bij wet verboden is om te stelen; je kunt natuurlijk proberen te bewijzen dat je honger had, maar je bent en blijft nog altijd een dief in de ogen van de rest.

Als we iemand doodslaan komt er echter veel meer bij kijken: het is bij wet verboden van te doden, zelfs niet in geval van zelfverdediging, maar met een goede advocaat ontsnap je gemakkelijk aan een levenslange opsluiting.
"Hij heeft een moeilijke jeugd gehad, vroeger werd hij vaak geslagen door zijn vader, zijn moeder stierf in zijn armen op zijn zesde verjaardag, hij was dronken en hij had zichzelf niet meer onder controle nadat zijn vriendin hem verlaten had."
Deze man wordt ontoerekeningsvatbaar geacht voor een gevangenisstraf. Hij verblijft 3 maand in een tuchthuis en loopt weer rond op vrije voet. Hij is en blijft een moordenaar, en hij is nog altijd verantwoordelijk voor zijn onomkeerbare daad, hoe je het ook draait of keert.
Vanaf het moment dat er geen twijfel meer mogelijk is over de dader(s), moet deze onmiddelijk zonder proces voor de rest van zijn leven in eenzame opsluiting verdwijnen. Tot het bittere einde. Geen vervroegde vrijlating door goed gedrag, geen genade.

De huidige maatschappij vereist stricte orde en maatregelen om gezond te kunnen functioneren. We kunnen onmogelijk mensen aan wiens handen bloed kleeft vrij laten rondlopen.

Conclusie: de mens is in alle omstandigheden verantwoordelijk voor zijn daden. Geen uitzonderingen, geen genade.


Quick translation: (probably less fluent, but whatever)

In how far is a man responsible for his acts?

Every 'deed' we do requires a certain reasoning behind it : I'd have something to eat because I'm hungry, I'd kill someone if I'd feel the need to do so, even if it was but a way to let off some steam.
Both deeds were preceded by logic reasoning, though the first example will be, most probably, more easily accepted by our society than the second one.
In both examples, we are completely responsible for our behaviour:

We chose all by ourself to have something to eat, and if we eat something that was not ours, we'll have to face the consequences, because it is forbidden by law to steal. Of course you can try to prove that you were hungry at that moment, but you are and will stay a thief in the eyes of the society.

When we kill somebody, it get's a lot more complicated: it's forbidden by law to kill someone, even in self-defense, but you can evade the lifelong imprisonement easily with a good lawyer at your side.
"He has had a terrible childhood, he was beaten up frequently by his father, his mother died in his arms on his sixth birthday, he was drunk and he was unable to control his actions after his girlfriend left him."
The man in question will be labeled "unresponsible" and unfit for imprisonement. He will be sent away for "re-education", only to be reinserted into society 3 months later. He is and will stay a murderer, and he is responsible for his vile deed.
From the moment that the criminals are identified, they should be locked away in solitary confinement for the rest of their life. Till the bitter end. No mercy.

The current society requires strict order and rules to function well. We cannot let murderers walk around free.

Conclusion: one is always responsible for his deeds, no matter the situation. No exceptions, no mercy.


There you go. Now, discuss *smokin*

in english criminal law, it is always held that a person is responsible 100% for their actions. even if someone is drunk or intoxicated, they can still be criminally liable. even if the acts they do are caused by provocation, or a mental disorder, there is no aquital, but a reduction in offence, or a consignment to a mental institute.

the harder question is not that of individual responsibility, but corporate responsibility. if a corporation in the cause of their busienss dealings and activities kills someone directly or indirectly, who should be held responsible? the corporation cannot be found guilty of murder, you can't imprison it, but that doesn't deny that the corporations poisoning of a stream, killed a child who drank water from the stream (for example.)

i think, in some situations though, the law is too harsh. if you are intoxicated involuntarily, someone spiked your drink, or added a drug of some kind to that drink, and you, under the influence committed an act, and intended to do so, you are liable. fully liable. but, you know that if you get drunk, you are likely to get violent and do the act, and so you make sure you never ever drink that much. if it hadn't been for the spiked drink, (depth charging for instance) you would not have committed the crime, but you are still liable. in that situation, i think the law is too harsh. (any english lawyers, check the case of kingston with regards to involuntary intoxication)

on the other end of the scale, someone who causes GBH whilst apprehending a man (citizens arrest) who was attempting to rape a woman is not liable at all. obviously suh a person shouldn't be liable. but i don't think his liability should be any less than the one described above, especially as he deliberatly and with full clear mind intended to injure the other man.

Golly. thats is the most nearsighted and fascist thing i have ever heard. such sophistry, putting up starw men to beat them down. that i could barely finish. i do not agree with any of it. argh! " yes., the law..bpw down to the law...." dude, mordahk, thsi is pretty twisted shite mate.

Quote:

---

Golly. thats is the most nearsighted and fascist thing i have ever heard. such sophistry, putting up starw men to beat them down. that i could barely finish. i do not agree with any of it. argh! " yes., the law..bpw down to the law...." dude, mordahk, thsi is pretty twisted shite mate.

---

If there weren't people like me around who said nearsighted and fascist things, you would become fascist yourself without even noticing it. There's no light without darkness, and vice versa.

So, no need to start getting all worked up about it. It's simply a waste of energy. And when you don't agree with anything that I wrote down there, then why don't you explain what you didn't like about it (try to be specific) and how you would handle the subject.

Regards,

Mordhak

Nearsighted and fascist, I don't know, but I certainly feel the argument is jumbled and without adequate reasoning or evidence. The comparison between eating and killing is inanely long, and the main argument is thus compromised of depth. Your text pretty much comes down to, "you are responsible for what you do, and therefore all criminals should be locked away". This assumes the direct responsibility of the perpetrator, ignoring any rules of self-preservation, eye for an eye, etc, the inability of any human being to redeem himself or change, the "responsibility" of the hegemonic institution to eliminate from the society these apparently unredeemable, fully responsible people, and the full weight of guilt and wrongdoing upon the perpetrator. Hmmm... there you go. I don't refute your argument's core, I simply point out that you need a proper argument before we are to discuss it.

Quote:

---

I don't refute your argument's core, I simply point out that you need a proper argument before we are to discuss it.

---

Want it short and clear? There you go :)

My argument: no mercy with criminals, but no death sentences either.

My reasoning: The current society requires strict order and rules to function well. We cannot let murderers walk around free.

My evidence: Without strict laws and strong law enforcement, our society would slowly get destroyed from within. We cannot let the corruption found in today's world continue, or we'll face the consequences.

Call it fascist, call it near-sighted, I can see a certain logic behind it. Maybe you cannot, but then, please propose what you would say on the topic. :)

Regards,

Mordhak

Quote:

---

Originally posted by borispavlovgrozny@Nov 13 2004, 05:12 PM
Golly. thats is the most nearsighted and fascist thing i have ever heard. such sophistry, putting up straw men to beat them down. that i could barely finish. i do not agree with any of it. argh! " yes., the law..bpw down to the law...." dude, mordahk, thsi is pretty twisted shite mate.

---

Ok, Ive have gotten some heat about this, So I'll go about explaining myself because I happen to like the person who brought shite my way.

Lets start off by stating that give that this is a translation, some things may have been missed, as in any translation, and by thanking Mordahk for translating, but that aside, lets look at the English text.

The author main point to support his conclusion: Does every deed require logical reasoning?

No, many deeds are done without any logical process on behalf of the agent. (and I will qualify logical reasoning as the conscious and rationalized decision to commit an act, since the author conveniently overlooked this point) Take breathing for example. You do not consciously breathe. Likewise there is a myriad of daily actions, which seem more socially substantial than breathing, which one does in a mode which could not be qualified as "logical", especially by the "criminal" element which may itself not be within their senses. So when a half witted child of 13 with a double digit IQ guns down a bus full of nuns, he may not be acting of his own volition. It may not have been a conscious choice, he may not be aware of the consequences neither of his actions nor of the basic principles that separate right and wrong. In short, he is simply detached from our "reality". Do we hold him accountable for the murder, yes, he is the obvious choice, hell, the only choice. Do we separate him from society yes, he is liable to repeat his actions. Do we put him in solitary confinement, NO! that is inhumane, its worst than killing him, and it will make him crazier. Did he do it of his own volition, obviously this is dubious, but the possibility looms large that he didnt. So much for point one.

Anyone ever taken martial arts? If you have, you know someone sneaking up behind you is a completely different bag of potatoes than before. If half killed a guy who was trying to come up and just scare me whilst I typed a paper on my computer. I was so involved in the paper that my reaction to getting scared was suddenly to bring by hand within millimeter of crushing his Adams apple into the back of his throat. This is not something I thought out, its reflex, and its something that happens often in self defense situations. This is not an act of volition, but an unthinking response to stimuli, you are now a murderer, and you must rot in jail, because the “law” says so…. The author, apparently, doesn’t know kung fu :p - Note, this is his first sophistical argument, he makes it appear that the law cant be redefined to include self defense , and that the only workable condition is his way of the current state. Its his ways or the highway.)

Criminality before the law and Moral obligation versus Volition
Lets constrict our case to "sane" beings however, and to lesser crime for which i should be imprisoned for life :wack. Lets move away from inetetion and responsibility, as the author just so happens to treat the tangents of the argument, and concoct a situation in which a criminal act is justifiable under the initative moral law ( at least mine) and thu ceases to be a criminal act, thus absolving the agent not of volition, but of criminality. Take me, the supposed thief; I decide I am going to steal a loaf of bread to feed my children. Yet, the "law" labels me a thief and finds me guilty besides my motive. Altruistic intention aside, I am sentenced to solitary confinement for my "crime" (the author switches from using murderer to simply - criminal and dish out the same punishment for all, a bit draconic dont you think fellows).
I cannot buy bread because I am unemployed, I am unemployed because my factory was bombed, my factory was bombed through no fault of my own. In short, my only recourse for the survival of my persona and my progeny is to steal. I am morally responsible for the survival of my children, and if anyone here believes in any sort of moral obligation, you didnt have to read this far, and I MUST steal for their survival. Now that I steal from those who bomb my factory and put me in the position to steal, I am a thief and thus must be punished by the "LAW". In what sort of convoluted mind with a hard on for Hammurabi would this sort of "logic" fly? What if the law is unjust? When does civil disobedience become crime? This is an absolutism which is nigh unthinkable, there is no place for subjectivity, it is only "weiss oder schwarz", something unacceptable for a functioning society.

My View
Assuming a utilitarian point of view, and assuming that mans main concern is to remain alive, A man is responsible for his actions so far as he is responsible for his situation over which he had direct control over. No one here would die or let their children die before stealing bread to feed his children (if you would, please tell me!).

As for killing someone, I will again go back to utilitarianism. Someone is trying to kill you, you kill them instead , basic self defense. Now according to the author, you should go rot in jail. here he veers from the fact that you may not have intended to kill, and that you may not even have consciously defended yourself, you are responsible for this act in its totality, he veers away from the fact that a murder is morally wrong, and implies that all murders are equal, your killing of a killer is par with the killers killing of you as an innocent person.

I agree with him in that i do not believe that people who can and are liable to commit murder should be reintegrated back into society, but I dont think a first murder qualifies you as a murderer and a possible repeater, please refer back to the self defense argument. As for the deranged murderers, yes, re educate, and make sure you do it correctly. He takes a stab at what is obviously an inefficient court system and usues it to give weight to his argument by making it appear that there are only two possibilities. The current wrong way, or "his lock them up till the rot way" One would be hard pressed to choose the former, and thats just the sort of sophistical argument that make this essay not worth commenting on.


Boris

Bravo, boris, that was exactly what I wanted to hear :)

Now, if you allow me to correct some of your slight miss-interpretions, probably due to my hasty translation:

Quote:

---

Does every deed require logical reasoning?

No, many deeds are done without any logical process on behalf of the agent. (and I will qualify logical reasoning as the conscious and rationalized decision to commit an act, since the author conveniently overlooked this point)

---

I was not talking about every deed, I was talking about the 2 aforementioned deeds, namely eating and killing. They are, most commonly, preceded by reasoning, logic or not.

Quote:

---

So when a half witted child of 13 with a double digit IQ guns down a bus full of nuns, he may not be acting of his own volition. It may not have been a conscious choice, he may not be aware of the consequences neither of his actions nor of the basic principles that separate right and wrong.

---

Re-read the title: "In how far is a man responsible for his acts?". This suggests that I will be only handling grown men in the text.

Quote:

---

This is not something I thought out, its reflex, and its something that happens often in self defense situations. This is not an act of volition, but an unthinking response to stimuli, you are now a murderer, and you must rot in jail, because the “law” says so….

---

Again, a miss-interpretion. I was not saying you have to be thrown into jail when you kill someone out of self-defense, I was stating that the current law prescribes it this way. There's a difference between the two, if you get me?

Quote:

---

and to lesser crime for which i should be imprisoned for life

---

Did I ever say that? No. I did say that "from the moment that the criminals are identified, they should be locked away in solitary confinement for the rest of their life", but, in the context, the criminals mentioned before were guilty of murder. Nothing less.

Quote:

---

Take me, the supposed thief; I decide I am going to steal a loaf of bread to feed my children. Yet, the "law" labels me a thief and finds me guilty besides my motive. Altruistic intention aside, I am sentenced to solitary confinement for my "crime"

---

I never mentioned any form of punishment applicable to such minor theft. I only said that you were responsible for your act. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

it is only "weiss oder schwarz", something unacceptable for a functioning society.

---

I does work out quite well over time; look at the DDR during the Cold War.

Quote:

---

that make this essay not worth commenting on.

---

If you say so. But then again, if it wasn't worth commenting on, why did you comment about every single period I wrote down? :):

Keep up the good work, boys. Tear it all apart and spit on the pieces, but don't miss-interpret anything again.

Regards

Mordhak

A continuing discusion with Aristophanes
(Mordahk, ill answer you later, promise.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristophanes
How far do you believe any person's responsibility towards himself and another goes?
When does he breach that ethical boundary, and when can he be forgiven for being the instrument of misfortune for another?

---

I (a person) am responsible for all my actions which are a direct result of the circumstances which I have shaped for myself, or allowed others to shape for me. Outside of that, I cannot, in my view, be held responsible for any action I take to bring about a return to my eudaemonia within the moral contrainsts of my consciouness.

i.e if you drive me to kill/steal/play yathzee as the only moral recourse, it is your responsibility, not mine.

I am responsible to others in that i cannot morally interfere with their self determination so long as they do not interfere with mine.

All of this presupposes sanity and morality. The criminally insane are held to their actions only because they might repeat them, but cannot, in my view , be held morally responsible.

Is this like a college paper?

Quote:

---

I (a person) am responsible for all my actions which are a direct result of the circumstances which I have shaped for myself, or allowed others to shape for me.

---

Which includes getting drunk, insane (note, I said becoming insane over time, not being mentally insane from your birth), taking drugs, or being poor as a canal rat.
Agreed, the last one really depends on the situation, but that poor that you can't even buy bread for you children can only be your own fault, like being analcohol-addict or smoking hell of a lot. You can buy 2 breads with the money for 1 pack of cigarrettes.

Quote:

---

The criminally insane are held to their actions only because they might repeat them, but cannot, in my view , be held morally responsible.

---

You got a point there. They are not morally responsible, because they probably don't have moral values of that kind. Not that I know how mentally insane people feel or think, I can only guess of course.

But even if they are not morally responsible or don't have any moral values of any kind, they still are responsible for their act in front of the tribunal.

Quote:

---

Is this like a college paper?

---

Yeah. So what? :):

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mordhak@Nov 15 2004, 05:10 PM
Yeah. So what? :):

---

Nothing, just that I thought Eropean requirments would be much tougher than those in US. I go to college in US and the emphasis on writting -or the curriculum in general- (2-4 page normal assignment-double spaced always), I thought, was lenient and this is still mediocre. It won't even compare to University of Chicago or Stanford.

Sorry, misunderstood your question somehow. I go to school in "the college", which is the name of my 'high school'. Why can't you guys just speak British English? It's all so confusing :p
For your information, I am 3 weeks away from my 16th birthday. And, also, the English version is undoubtetly much worse written than the Dutch one, which is the only reason why I put up the untranslated version, so that Dutch-speaking people (there are surprisingly many of them around) would be able read the original one.

I dare you to write an essay in a foreign language you started learning 4 years ago. :)

But we're getting off-topic. If you have any remarks about my text, then please go ahead.