Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Foresight and ethics

24

Posts

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    chasm953 wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what one can foresee?

    Or adding to Drez's point, where does it end?

    What part of reasonably forseeable is so mystical to you?

    You aren't defining it! You're not saying what is "reasonable", you're not defining what dictates the quality "reasonable".

    You're just throwing about this phrase as if it means something. The things I consider to be reasonable are obviously not considered to be reasonable by you.

    So how do we define "reasonable" when you think it is A and I think it is ~A?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    This thread has become awesome.

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    This thread has become awesome.

    You think it has become awesome. Other people would think that it sucks and has become asinine and pedantic.

    But those people, also, would argue that "awesome", "sucks", "asinine", and "pedantic" are not subjective qualities.

    And that's why they are fun people with whom we can converse.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    OK. I cannot foresee anything. So I'm not responsible for anything?

    No, generally not. Though, of course, the people who can hardly forsee anything are generally retarded, and the only people who really can't forsee anything are the deceased.
    _J_ wrote:
    You aren't defining it! You're not saying what is "reasonable", you're not defining what dictates the quality "reasonable"

    I almost forgot what it was like to argue with you. Something in line with Grid's definition would be pretty standard. Usually, reasonably forseeable events are those that you could anticipate through inference from facts which you either already know, or should have known. Generally, extensive study isn't required, just a lack of gross negligence.

    However, where exactly we draw the line for reasonability in foresight, is, as I already pointed out, a largely seperate discussion from this one.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    We aren't dealing with the physical world, though. We're dealing with emotions and human beings.
    Even if human beings are not completely causally determined, they still exhibit observable patterns of behaviour. I'm no psychologist and I certainly couldn't provide an exhaustive list of those behaviours, but I'm sure that such a list could be at least started, even if it could never be finished.
    Situation A: You ask your wife if it is ok for you to have sex with another woman. She says "no". You have sex with another woman. Your wife leaves you.

    Situation B: You and your wife never talk about having sex with other people. You have sex with another woman. Your wife leaves you.
    I'd say that in a society that generally encourages and puts value on monogamy, it is reasonable to assume that unless you're told otherwise, your SO reflects those values. It's foreseeable that she will leave you in both cases, and especially so in the first one.
    Is there any difference in those two situations with the "responsibility" of the individual? Are we talking about "She says not to do X and you do X" or are we talking about the nebulous "every situation ever" responsibility?
    Not the latter, I don't think. Again, that's the whole point of mobilizing the notion that some things are foreseeable and others aren't.

  • DonaldRumsfeldDonaldRumsfeld Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I am having a hard time deciding whether _J_ really doesn't understand or is just arguing for sake of arguing

    if you're retarded enough to give a loaded gun to a suicidal person and not foresee any negative outcomes then it wasn't reasonable to assume that you could make the right decision. if you had a high enough IQ to determine that it was a really bad idea but went ahead and gave the gun anyways then you would be reasonably responsible for that decision

    what is so hard to get?

    111111A.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I am having a hard time deciding whether _J_ really doesn't understand or is just arguing for sake of arguing

    if you're retarded enough to give a loaded gun to a suicidal person and not foresee any negative outcomes then it wasn't reasonable to assume that you could make the right decision. if you had a high enough IQ to determine that it was a really bad idea but went ahead and gave the gun anyways then you would be reasonably responsible for that decision

    what is so hard to get?

    The means by which one discerns the reasonable result of one's actions for which one, apparently, is responsible.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    I am having a hard time deciding whether _J_ really doesn't understand or is just arguing for sake of arguing

    if you're retarded enough to give a loaded gun to a suicidal person and not foresee any negative outcomes then it wasn't reasonable to assume that you could make the right decision. if you had a high enough IQ to determine that it was a really bad idea but went ahead and gave the gun anyways then you would be reasonably responsible for that decision

    what is so hard to get?

    The means by which one discerns the reasonable result of one's actions for which one, apparently, is responsible.

    Are you saying that people are incapable of determing any results for any actions? Cuz that seems like a stretch.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Rereading page one of this thread, I think "foreseeable consequence" is being used in place of "has potential to cause harm." y/n?

    Because I don't agree. If I shoot you, a foreseeable consequence is that you will die or be wounded. A potential consequence is that the shot person's loved ones will be upset.

    steam_sig.png
  • DonaldRumsfeldDonaldRumsfeld Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Rereading page one of this thread, I think "foreseeable consequence" is being used in place of "has potential to cause harm." y/n?

    Because I don't agree. If I shoot you, a foreseeable consequence is that you will die or be wounded. A potential consequence is that the shot person's loved ones will be upset.
    I'm not sure I follow

    are you breaking them down into immediate and secondary consequences?

    111111A.png
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Rereading page one of this thread, I think "foreseeable consequence" is being used in place of "has potential to cause harm." y/n?
    No. I offered this definition, and it at least encapsulates what I mean and maybe Mr^2 as well:

    "An event is foreseeable if it is made likely by the nature of the physical world and/or those properties that can be reasonably generalized to all human beings and/or those properties you know a given person possesses."
    Because I don't agree. If I shoot you, a foreseeable consequence is that you will die or be wounded. A potential consequence is that the shot person's loved ones will be upset.
    Both consequences are foreseeable. One might be more foreseeable than the other insofar as the probability of the person dying is likely higher than the probability of the relatives being upset (he may not have any relatives, or any that care, for instance).

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm not sure it really matters for this discussion (because no matter what you call what you're talking about, the point still exists - a word is just a word), but that's not how foreseeable has ever been defined for me. A foreseeable outcome is a definite outcome. It's not the same as a likely or a potential or even an extremely probable outcome. Then again one could argue that absolutely nothing is definite. Maybe the word foreseeable is just nonsense.

    I think you guys are simply suggesting that people have a responsibility not to affect causes that have estimable, highly-probable negative effects, outcomes, or consequences. Whether the word "foreseeable" is correct or not, that's the basic point. Yes?

    steam_sig.png
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think that given the huge variance in peoples' personalities, attitudes, upbringings, etc., that "foreseeable" is more or less limited to your own thought process and likely actions. It's impossible to predict how exactly someone else is going to react in my experience.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I would agree with that...which is why I'm trying to assess their argument. I think it's just a semantic argument at this point. I don't think anything is foreseeable. I think likelihoods, probabilities, and various possibilities based on circumstance, empathy, and understanding are present in each and every situation but I think the word "foreseeable" is something of a misfire in this debate.

    steam_sig.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    chasm953 wrote: »
    I think that given the huge variance in peoples' personalities, attitudes, upbringings, etc., that "foreseeable" is more or less limited to your own thought process and likely actions. It's impossible to predict how exactly someone else is going to react in my experience.

    So if I were to kick you in the face and piss on your lawn, I would not be able to predict your displeasure? Are you autistic? No one has argued that you must exercise clairvoyance when deciding your course of action, just reasonable dilligence with concern to other people's wellfare.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm not sure it really matters for this discussion (because no matter what you call what you're talking about, the point still exists - a word is just a word), but that's not how foreseeable has ever been defined for me.
    It's not so much the word that's important as the concept it's attached to.
    A foreseeable outcome is a definite outcome.
    Maybe in Bizarro World. :P
    It's not the same as a likely or a potential or even an extremely probable outcome. Then again one could argue that absolutely nothing is definite. Maybe the word foreseeable is just nonsense.
    Just look at the word. "Fore" as in "before", "see" as in "see", "able" as in "able". Able to be seen before. That's what foreseeable means.

    An interesting point to ponder is whether or not an event actually has to occur in order for it to have been foreseeable. I say not, though I'd wager people will disagree there.
    I think you guys are simply suggesting that people have a responsibility not to affect causes that have estimable, highly-probable negative effects, outcomes, or consequences. Whether the word "foreseeable" is correct or not, that's the basic point. Yes?
    Basically. To quote myself again, my position would be that a person should not engage in activities that have negative consequences made likely by the nature of the physical world and/or those properties that can be reasonably generalized to all human beings and/or those properties you know a given person possesses.
    chasm953 wrote: »
    It's impossible to predict how exactly someone else is going to react in my experience.
    Fortunately, that's not what foresight is about.

  • DonaldRumsfeldDonaldRumsfeld Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    its not my fault or the other posters that you cant understand the concept of reasonability or a foreseeable action

    Drez you seriously should take a step back and get your shit together
    I don't think anything is foreseeable
    you think its impossible to anticipate an action? so if you are thinking about smashing your finger with a hammer you cant foresee that it will hurt?

    this thread is blowing my mind

    111111A.png
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    You're responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of your actions. If you know that your action will lead to other people making bad choices, then it's your responsibility to consider that.

    What if my actions, i.e. my decision to sleep with them, does not lead to anything bad? Am I still in the wrong, just because one of the possible consequences of my sleeping with them would cause them, or their significant other, harm?

    What if my sleeping with them leads to them realizing their mistake and making the decision to never do it again and as a result strengthens their relationship with their s/o? Do I deserve credit for that? By your logic I do. Which is great, because that is what I am going to be doing from now on: trying to get them to realize their mistake. After sleeping with them, of course. That way, I can sleep around with people who have boyfriends and purchase a ticket to heaven with all the credit I acquire.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    I'm not sure it really matters for this discussion (because no matter what you call what you're talking about, the point still exists - a word is just a word), but that's not how foreseeable has ever been defined for me.
    It's not so much the word that's important as the concept it's attached to.

    Correct.
    A foreseeable outcome is a definite outcome.
    Maybe in Bizarro World. :P

    Or in the English-speaking world. That's the world I live in.
    It's not the same as a likely or a potential or even an extremely probable outcome. Then again one could argue that absolutely nothing is definite. Maybe the word foreseeable is just nonsense.
    Just look at the word. "Fore" as in "before", "see" as in "see", "able" as in "able". Able to be seen before. That's what foreseeable means.

    An interesting point to ponder is whether or not an event actually has to occur in order for it to have been foreseeable. I say not, though I'd wager people will disagree there.

    I do, and that's the point. A foreseeable outcome is an outcome you know will occur. "To know," to me, is a very definite term. It doesn't mean that a foreseeable outcome is one you think will occur, or that you think will 99.99999% will occur. It's an outcome that will occur and, after the fact, did occur.
    I think you guys are simply suggesting that people have a responsibility not to affect causes that have estimable, highly-probable negative effects, outcomes, or consequences. Whether the word "foreseeable" is correct or not, that's the basic point. Yes?
    Basically. To quote myself again, my position would be that a person should not engage in activities that have negative consequences made likely by the nature of the physical world and/or those properties that can be reasonably generalized to all human beings and/or those properties you know a given person possesses.

    Good. This is the only thing that matters: the concept, not the word.
    its not my fault or the other posters that you cant understand the concept of reasonability or a foreseeable action

    Drez you seriously should take a step back and get your shit together

    No, it's okay, my shit is together. I just happen to know the definition of foreseeable and you don't. That's what this comes down to. Maybe you should go away, take a breather, read a dictionary, and then come back if you have something more to add to this thread but the bullshit semantics you've been fucking the thread up with. At least I've been discussing the concept behind the word. Honestly, look the word up. Foreseeable outcome = an outcome that you know will happen. I've never heard anyone use the term "I know" to mean "I think" (actually, that's a lie, people pull that shit all the time...but it's always incorrect to substitute "I know" for "I think").

    This thread is only blowing your mind because there's not much to blow.

    [/nastiness]

    steam_sig.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Re Ege: If you could reliably go around improving people's relationships by getting them to cheat, then it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Too bad that's a complete fantasy world.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think Ege02 had a thread suggesting that at some point, so...that last post doesn't surprise me. Let's get out of Crazytown please.

    steam_sig.png
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    If you could actually go around improving people's relationships by getting them to cheat, then it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Too bad that's a complete fantasy world.

    Wrong.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Re Ege: If you could reliably go around improving people's relationships by getting them to cheat, then it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Too bad that's a complete fantasy world.

    Reliably?

    So we moved from "foreseeable consequence" to "reliable consequence".

    Nice.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Re Ege: If you could reliably go around improving people's relationships by getting them to cheat, then it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Too bad that's a complete fantasy world.

    Reliably?

    So we moved from "foreseeable consequence" to "reliable consequence".

    Nice.

    If you were to do that, you would ruin more relationships than you would strengthen, you would cause more nastiness than you would avert. If you were actually able to do the reverse, then sure, you'd have a ticket to awesometown.

    As to the difference between something being foreseen and being reliably predictable, maybe you should try reading the thread.

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    You're responsible for your very own action: the choice to cheat with this willing partner. The partner is responsible for his.

  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Re Ege: If you could reliably go around improving people's relationships by getting them to cheat, then it might be a worthwhile endeavor. Too bad that's a complete fantasy world.

    Reliably?

    So we moved from "foreseeable consequence" to "reliable consequence".

    Nice.

    If you were to do that, you would ruin more relationships than you would strengthen, you would cause more nastiness than you would avert. If you were actually able to do the reverse, then sure, you'd have a ticket to awesometown.

    As to the difference between something being foreseen and being reliably predictable, maybe you should try reading the thread.

    I did try reading the thread. Couldn't get past your guys' semantics bullshit.

    In any case, you did not answer my question.

    If my sleeping with them did not cause their relationship any harm, am I in the clear? I'm not even talking about edge cases like strengthening the relationship. I'm talking about neutral outcomes, which in my particular case seems to be the norm. So, am I in the clear?

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    If my sleeping with them did not cause their relationship any harm, am I in the clear? I'm not even talking about edge cases like strengthening the relationship. I'm talking about neutral outcomes, which in my particular case seems to be the norm. So, am I in the clear?
    No harm, no foul. Though you're deluded if you think your alleged experience is anywhere near representative of the way things tend to work out.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    If my sleeping with them did not cause their relationship any harm, am I in the clear? I'm not even talking about edge cases like strengthening the relationship. I'm talking about neutral outcomes, which in my particular case seems to be the norm. So, am I in the clear?

    If there's good reason to believe that sleeping with this person won't cause any harm, or that the harm it might cause will be outweighed by positive effects, then yes it would be justifiable. I don't think that every case of cheating is wrong; like everything, the morality cheating is context-sensitive.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    I just wanted to move away from the semantics that were derailing everything.

    On that subject I'll say what I said before: people are responsible for their own actions. I am responsible for mine, and you are responsible for yours. I do, personally, think it is dickish to go around and try to disrupt marriages or partnerships, but I think context is extremely important and with emotion and "love" there are so many contexts (i.e. situations and circumstances) that it is almost impossible to say that enabling someone into an affair or into leaving their partnership is bad or good or neither. While I don't subscribe to Kentian morality, I do think that love and the emotions surrounding love pulls intent into the discussion. It's...an exception to the rule. Usually, for me, actions speak for themselves. The ends don't have a necessary moral value and intent or mindset is usually unimportant to. The act of breaking up a marriage or a relationship, though, can be moral or immoral based on your intention and the circumstances. It's a special case in my moral framework.

    In the broader sense, I think that people should be aware of and responsible for their actions and the consequences of their actions insofar as it affects themselves, others, and the world, but I think that every person is equally responsible for their own actions. So, yes, it may be partially someone's "fault" for enabling someone to cheat but it's still primarily the cheater's fault.

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    I'm questioning the ability of human beings to judge the reactions other human beings will have to any given situation.

    The imperfections of human reason do not abrogate us from the responsibility of using reason to guide our actions.

    Example: if I fire a gun at an internal wall in my apartment building, I don't know where that bullet will eventually end up. I don't know for sure if it will hit an innocent bystander or not. My predictive abilities are not good enough to determine the exact fate of that bullet, but they are good enough to determine that the risk of hitting an innocent bystander is high enough that I probably shouldn't do it.

    To contrast, there is a slim possibility that if I were to go shooting at an outdoor range, I might accidentally drop my barrel an inch or two when my arm gets fatigued, fire a bullet into the ground, and that bullet might ricochet off a rock and hit somebody. (Something like this happened to a friend of mine - nobody got hurt, but she dropped her muzzle and managed to ping a bullet off a rock which then hit an unexpected spot at the side of the range.) But the risk of that is small enough that it's not going to stop me from shooting at a range.

    Neither very positive nor very negative consequences are by themselves sufficient conditions to compel or prevent me from a given course of action unless you also take into account the probability that each consequence may occur. I might get hit by a meteorite walking to work today, but if I don't walk to work today I might lose my job. My life > my job, but that doesn't stop me from walking to work, because the former is a very remote possibility but the latter is very likely.

    Human beings are relatively predictable. For the most part, we can effectively estimate the probabilities of most possible human reactions to day-to-day situations. I know that if I give my girlfriend a Cadbury Egg there's around a 99.999% probability that she'll be delighted that I thought of her while I was at the supermarket. The probability that my girlfriend will "have a seizure and die" from a Cadbury Egg is so remote it's effect on the ethical calculus of the decision is negligible.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    You're responsible for your very own action: the choice to cheat with this willing partner. The partner is responsible for his.

    Well, yes, I totally agree with this. People have this conceptualization of blame as if it were a tug-of-war or pie. Two people can be totally at fault regarding a single incident. Totally 100% at fault. Equally. For one basic "thing."

    steam_sig.png
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    You're responsible for your very own action: the choice to cheat with this willing partner. The partner is responsible for his.

    Okay, so let's get into more detail.

    Let's say I cheat with her. She goes home the next morning. Boyfriend finds out. They break up. She is fine with it because she has been meaning to get out of the relationship for a while and this was her ticket out.

    The boyfriend on the other hand is devastated.

    Am I at least partially responsible because I caused harm to this person I don't know and have never met before?

    By your logic the answer is yes.

    But then, to give a completely different example, I know that my buying and wearing these Nike shoes is causing some sweatshop laborers on the other side of the globe to suffer. And I can foresee this because I know they are manufactured in sweatshops. Do I carry responsibility for the suffering of those people because I support the exploitative actions of corporations?

    Do you now see the problem with your logic? If one goes around with it they would eventually be overburdened with guilt.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    You're responsible for your very own action: the choice to cheat with this willing partner. The partner is responsible for his.

    Well, yes, I totally agree with this. People have this conceptualization of blame as if it were a tug-of-war or pie. Two people can be totally at fault regarding a single incident. Totally 100% at fault. Equally. For one basic "thing."

    Right. As GridSystem said in the other thread, blame is not zero-sum.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    If my sleeping with them did not cause their relationship any harm, am I in the clear? I'm not even talking about edge cases like strengthening the relationship. I'm talking about neutral outcomes, which in my particular case seems to be the norm. So, am I in the clear?

    If there's good reason to believe that sleeping with this person won't cause any harm, or that the harm it might cause will be outweighed by positive effects, then yes it would be justifiable. I don't think that every case of cheating is wrong; like everything, the morality cheating is context-sensitive.

    Sweet. I can sleep happily now.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I posted in this in the other thread, but I think it goes better over here.
    MrMister wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    I'd at least HOPE the private rules of a couple's relationship would be well beyond the sphere of my knowledge. I'd also hope that I could treat adults like adults, and trust that a person who has decided to sleep around on their partner knows what they are doing, and has a right to make that decision and go through with it free from any outsider judgments.

    Even and especially if that outsider is a single person with no commitments to honor him/herself.
    Except that things don't work that way. Human beings are exceedingly well-equipped to make mistakes. If you enable a person to make a mistake, you are responsible for helping. The person who actually made the mistake is absolutely responsible for his actions, and so are you. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

    Doesn't this have some sort of limit though? There's a very mixed message about this, especially when something tragic happens. We always say, don't worry Timmy, your brother killed himself. It was his decision. This is when Timmy is upset because he was an ass, and said some things which really hurt his brother, perhaps pushing him over the edge - maybe even meaning to.

    It just seems this rationalization goes both ways, when trying to extract a learning experience we say 'hey, you're a part of the world around you, and your decisions have consequences you should be responsible for, even when the results themselves are by proxy.' But when we are trying to distance ourselves from a situation, we say 'hey, in the end we make our own decisions and commit to our own course of action, each person's actions and those results are their own.'

    Is the latter just a little white lie we tell to make things feel better, or are both views true depending on circumstance?

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    If my sleeping with them did not cause their relationship any harm, am I in the clear? I'm not even talking about edge cases like strengthening the relationship. I'm talking about neutral outcomes, which in my particular case seems to be the norm. So, am I in the clear?

    If there's good reason to believe that sleeping with this person won't cause any harm, or that the harm it might cause will be outweighed by positive effects, then yes it would be justifiable. I don't think that every case of cheating is wrong; like everything, the morality cheating is context-sensitive.

    Sweet. I can sleep with her happily now.

    Fixed?

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez--given that you are apparently not concerned with semantics, do you have anything to say about one being responsible for the probable outcomes of their actions of which they are or should have been aware?

    If the action involved only one person, yes. If it requires two people... it's more complicated.

    You're responsible for your very own action: the choice to cheat with this willing partner. The partner is responsible for his.

    Okay, so let's get into more detail.

    Let's say I cheat with her. She goes home the next morning. Boyfriend finds out. They break up. She is fine with it because she has been meaning to get out of the relationship for a while and this was her ticket out.

    The boyfriend on the other hand is devastated.

    Am I at least partially responsible because I caused harm to this person I don't know and have never met before?

    By your logic the answer is yes.

    You're slightly responsible, but not much, because she would have broken up with him anyway.
    However, the breakup itself is not an overall negative outcome. Yeah, the boyfriend was hurt, but just because somebody gets emotionally hurt by a decision does not mean the decision was a bad one. This especially applies to breakups.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.