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!
Posts
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
are you breaking them down into immediate and secondary consequences?
"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."
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).
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?
Facebook|Best vid ever.|2nd best vid ever.
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.
Maybe in Bizarro World.
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.
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.
Fortunately, that's not what foresight is about.
Drez you seriously should take a step back and get your shit together
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
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.
Correct.
Or in the English-speaking world. That's the world I live in.
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.
Good. This is the only thing that matters: the concept, not the word.
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]
Wrong.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Right. As GridSystem said in the other thread, blame is not zero-sum.
Sweet. I can sleep happily now.
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?
Fixed?
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.