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

MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
WorLord wrote: »
Isn't a marriage a commitment of two people to each other? Or is it actually a social contract, a bond by which the rest of us have to help enforce?

Everyone has a responsibility not to be a dick, and furthermore, to afford one another a basic level of consideration. This is your responsibility when deciding whether to become involved with a person who you know to already be in a relationship. Will you be having a deleterious effect on these people's lives? Is the person who wants to sleep with you clearly doing something they will regret? Or, like in bsjezz's case, is one of the people deeply unhappy and looking for an out? What will the consequences of your action be? You have to take these considerations into account.

You always have a responsibility to evaluate the consequences of your actions on those around you.

MrMister on
«134

Posts

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    Really?

    Yes. That's why I said it.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I don't know about your forum vendettas, or what brigade I'm supposed to belong to. Nor do I know about your history with Kant. I do know, however, that you're advocating a Kantian view of responsibility.
    Furthermore your post is completely asinine. You are equating leaving a spouse for another spouse, or an act of infidelity, to alcoholism, theft, and suicide. That's pretty fucked up and shows a really warped sense of how relationships work. Enabling someone to commit adultery isn't the same as enabling someone to drink or enabling someone who might possibly steal to steal (I find that example particularly ludicrous, by the way, and by ludicrous I mean I actually giggled a little out loud), or preventing a suicide risk from committing suicide. Jesus Christ, man, do you really think relationships work that way? Is every married person a slut looking for a quick fuck out of the marriage?

    Sound and fury signifying nothing, Drez. This has nothing to do with what I think about relationships; this has to do with personal responsibility. 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.

    OK first, sorry, I removed my spoiler'd comment. I do, however, remember telling you personally that I don't subscribe to Kant at all. Merely holding a believe that may coincide with something Kant also believed in doesn't equate to "blowing" Kant. OK?

    Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the affect of your actions, I'm saying that other people are not to be babied. You are ultimately (that word is important - it's what I began my rebuttal to you with) not responsible for anyone else's choices. Ultimately. You may share some responsibility for what they choose, but in the end, they make the decisions unless your actively manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed them into the decision. That's all I'm trying to say. I am personally responsible for my decisions. Even if some chick that I find attractive straddled my face...sure, we can blame her too in some way if I fuck her, but ultimately it's my decision to break my marital vows or not (other person willing).

    I do, however, think that it is absurd to equate infidelity and alcoholism, suicide, or theft. They are not even similar. So, bad analogies in my moral framework, sorry.

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    Really?

    Yes. That's why I said it.

    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?

    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.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    Really?

    Yes. That's why I said it.

    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Uh, well, foreseeable is subjective but I'm pretty sure MrMister is talking about one person pursuing another with the intention of getting them to leave their spouse or partner to go with them. The "foreseeable consequence" is breaking up the existing relationship. At least I've been arguing under that assumption. It's apparent that MrMister finds that immoral and that leaving a relationship for someone else is a "consequence" so I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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.

    Really?

    Yes. That's why I said it.

    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Uh, well, foreseeable is subjective but I'm pretty sure MrMister is talking about one person pursuing another with the intention of getting them to leave their spouse or partner to go with them. The "foreseeable consequence" is breaking up the existing relationship. At least I've been arguing under that assumption. It's apparent that MrMister finds that immoral and that leaving a relationship for someone else is a "consequence" so I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

    Ok. If we're going to qualify it...

    But as stated it was wholly unqualified:
    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.

    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
    _J_ wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Uh, well, foreseeable is subjective but I'm pretty sure MrMister is talking about one person pursuing another with the intention of getting them to leave their spouse or partner to go with them. The "foreseeable consequence" is breaking up the existing relationship. At least I've been arguing under that assumption. It's apparent that MrMister finds that immoral and that leaving a relationship for someone else is a "consequence" so I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

    Ok. If we're going to qualify it...

    But as stated it was wholly unqualified:
    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.

    I know. I'm assuming that qualification because anything else would have propelled the whole thing to a level of stupid I wouldn't have responded to in the first place.

    steam_sig.png
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Uh, well, foreseeable is subjective but I'm pretty sure MrMister is talking about one person pursuing another with the intention of getting them to leave their spouse or partner to go with them. The "foreseeable consequence" is breaking up the existing relationship. At least I've been arguing under that assumption. It's apparent that MrMister finds that immoral and that leaving a relationship for someone else is a "consequence" so I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

    He left it way too open. There's no qualification to it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you can say, "Okay, in this one specific circumstance, my weird-ass personal moral philosophy applies, but not to life in general," and have it appear remotely sensical.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?
    Really.

    After all, who gets to decide whether or not a person was "manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed" if not that person?

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?
    Really.

    After all, who gets to decide whether or not a person was "manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed" if not that person?

    I suggest the creation of a panel of well-read scholars.

    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.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    To determine foreseeability (foreseeableness? whatever), surely.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?
    Really.

    After all, who gets to decide whether or not a person was "manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed" if not that person?

    OK...so I'm not sure if you're actually supporting MrMister or not.

    I do, however, think that someone's judgment of whether or not they are being manipulated is independent of whether or not someone actively tries to manipulate them. That was my point. If I try to manipulate you into having a relationship with me - like, say, planting seeds of doubt about your spouse/parter in your mind, it's different than if I'm just trying to spend time with you because I love you and I want you to love me. Even if you can't identify what I'm doing, I sure can. It's different than acting innocently enough and those actions having foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences.

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    To determine foreseeability (foreseeableness? whatever), surely.

    I don't like the arbitrary lines involved in declaring responsibility for actions. Because there are plenty of unexpected things that happen in relationships and plenty of actions which lead to consequences and reactions unforeseen that it's pretty asinine to say, "Well, you should have known that doing X would make her cry!"

    Argue for a fully determined reality and you've made your case.

    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
    Right. You can however make a definite statement "I am trying to manipulate her" which was my point. I mean, it doesn't really matter what the manipulatee thinks. If the manipulator is manipulating, then, well... I mean I don't know why I'm arguing this, it sounds silly to me.

    steam_sig.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?
    Really.

    After all, who gets to decide whether or not a person was "manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed" if not that person?

    OK...so I'm not sure if you're actually supporting MrMister or not.

    I do, however, think that someone's judgment of whether or not they are being manipulated is independent of whether or not someone actively tries to manipulate them. That was my point. If I try to manipulate you into having a relationship with me - like, say, planting seeds of doubt about your spouse/parter in your mind, it's different than if I'm just trying to spend time with you because I love you and I want you to love me. Even if you can't identify what I'm doing, I sure can. It's different than acting innocently enough and those actions having foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences.

    And so much of that is subjective and based upon the parties involved. Who decides whether the guy is manipulating the girl? Who decides whether the girl is manipulating the guy?

    I'm sure that we've all listened to friends talk about their relationships and how someone is treating them badly only to think to ourselves, "uh....". Because it's all freaking subjective.

    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
    chasm953 wrote: »
    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.

    Gonna have to disagree with you. I'm responsible for my actions. Now you're trying to tell me that because I might buy gas on a given day, I have to consider all the possible ramifications of my actions, based on an unseen mass of people who may or may not fuck up based on my decision? For instance, if someone decides to get gas because they see me do it and they get killed in an armed robbery at the gas station, that's my responsibility and I should've considered it? What're you getting at with this line of reasoning?

    Could you accurately forsee any of that happening? If so, then you would be responsible to consider it. But the scenario you described is completely outlandish, and no one has any reason to expect it. In short, that's a terrible application of the principle I described.
    _J_ wrote:
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?

    One has a responsibility to exercise reasonable foresight in one's actions, and furthermore, one has a responsibility to consider all the forseen consequences of one's actions. I don't know what you mean by subjective in this context. Do you mean that people disagree over what constitutes reasonable foresight? Because what constitutes reasonable foresight is an entirely different discussion.
    Drez wrote:
    Uh, well, foreseeable is subjective but I'm pretty sure MrMister is talking about one person pursuing another with the intention of getting them to leave their spouse or partner to go with them. The "foreseeable consequence" is breaking up the existing relationship. At least I've been arguing under that assumption.

    Not entirely. If you foresee that your sleeping with a person will have a negative effect on their lives and the lives of those around them, then you are responsible for accounting for that in your decision. Whether that takes the form of a break-up or anything else. We could even imagine that you know that unless you sleep with this person they'll stay with their spouse. Suppose you know that the spouse is abusive. Then the considerations would be flipped, and breaking up the relationship would be a reason to sleep with them. The point is not that breakups are inherently bad, but that actions need to be evaluated in terms of their total consequence.
    Drez wrote:
    Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the affect of your actions, I'm saying that other people are not to be babied. You are ultimately (that word is important - it's what I began my rebuttal to you with) not responsible for anyone else's choices.

    They are responsible for their choice; you are responsible for yours. They are responsible for everything they foresaw coming out of theirs; you are responsible for everything you foresaw coming out of yours.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?
    No more so than, say, "manipulation, coercion, or emotional blackmail".

    Really?
    Really.

    After all, who gets to decide whether or not a person was "manipulated, coerced, or emotionally blackmailed" if not that person?

    OK...so I'm not sure if you're actually supporting MrMister or not.

    I do, however, think that someone's judgment of whether or not they are being manipulated is independent of whether or not someone actively tries to manipulate them. That was my point. If I try to manipulate you into having a relationship with me - like, say, planting seeds of doubt about your spouse/parter in your mind, it's different than if I'm just trying to spend time with you because I love you and I want you to love me. Even if you can't identify what I'm doing, I sure can. It's different than acting innocently enough and those actions having foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences.

    And so much of that is subjective and based upon the parties involved. Who decides whether the guy is manipulating the girl? Who decides whether the girl is manipulating the guy?

    I'm sure that we've all listened to friends talk about their relationships and how someone is treating them badly only to think to ourselves, "uh....". Because it's all freaking subjective.

    Well the actor can judge his own actions to a large extent. If I'm jerking off, I usually know I'm jerking off, because I'm doing so willingly. Same goes with manipulation. I wasn't talking about judgment when I first brought it up, I was talking about perpetration. I have a responsibility not to actively manipulate. I don't have a responsibility to prevent a girl from falling in love with me if I'm not manipulating her (or doing various other unsavory things).

    steam_sig.png
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So does your philosophy apply just to one specific circumstance? Or to life in general? If it's to life in general, my scenario, outlandish as hell though it may be, falls under your idea.

    And if it doesn't apply to life in general, why not? Seems less than half-assed to have it apply only to one circumstance and not all.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    chasm953 wrote: »
    So does your philosophy apply just to one specific circumstance? Or to life in general? If it's to life in general, my scenario, outlandish as hell though it may be, falls under your idea.

    When you get gas you have a responsibility to consider the reasonably forseeable consequences of your action, yes. However, someone getting shot doesn't fall under that category. Perhaps you could argue that environmental degredation does, or geopolitical problems, however, to argue that one could reasonably forsee what you described is insane.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    OK...so I'm not sure if you're actually supporting MrMister or not.
    I'm just having fun.
    I do, however, think that someone's judgment of whether or not they are being manipulated is independent of whether or not someone actively tries to manipulate them. That was my point.
    I don't get it. A person is manipulated if and only if another person thinks, "I am manipulating this person"?
    If I try to manipulate you into having a relationship with me - like, say, planting seeds of doubt about your spouse/parter in your mind, it's different than if I'm just trying to spend time with you because I love you and I want you to love me.
    I fail to see any difference except perhaps in terms of framing. You might love the person very much, but that doesn't change the fact that by your actions you are - deliberately or otherwise - "planting seeds of doubt" in the other person.
    Even if you can't identify what I'm doing, I sure can. It's different than acting innocently enough and those actions having foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences.
    So it's the intent that matters, not the outcome? I'm guilty of manipulation if I try and fail? For somebody who apparently dislikes Kant, you sound a lot like him.
    _J_ wrote: »
    I don't like the arbitrary lines involved in declaring responsibility for actions. Because there are plenty of unexpected things that happen in relationships and plenty of actions which lead to consequences and reactions unforeseen that it's pretty asinine to say, "Well, you should have known that doing X would make her cry!"

    Argue for a fully determined reality and you've made your case.
    The whole point of the foreseeable-unforeseeable distinction is that not all situations are one or the other.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    _J_ wrote:
    How do you determine what is "foreseeable"? Isn't that subjective?

    One has a responsibility to exercise reasonable foresight in one's actions, and furthermore, one has a responsibility to consider all the forseen consequences of one's actions. I don't know what you mean by subjective in this context. Do you mean that people disagree over what constitutes reasonable foresight? Because what constitutes reasonable foresight is an entirely different discussion.

    I'm questioning the ability of human beings to judge the reactions other human beings will have to any given situation. And even if we narrow it down to romantic relationships between two people. How many misunderstandings occur in one's average relationship that are simple misunderstandings?

    You can't know that handing your significant other a cadbury egg is going to trigger a memory of their ex who cheated on them duck who they lured into their bed with cadbury eggs. And you can't know that triggering that memmory is going to send them into a seizure from which they die.

    One cannot know everything about another human being. So I don't know what you're talking about when you see "foreseeable consequences" unless in a relationship two people chart out EVERY POSSIBLE SITUATION they could EVER encounter and explain all possible reactions to those situations.

    And not even in that sort of example. In a very reasonable sense one cannot know what consequences their actions will have. We can pretend like we do, but we really can't.

    I kiss my girlfriend goodnight and the way i do it reminds her of her boyfriend who raped her and so she goes into a fit. Am I responsible for that? Did i foresee it? No, because if I had foreseen it I wouldn't have done it.

    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
    MrMister wrote: »
    chasm953 wrote: »
    So does your philosophy apply just to one specific circumstance? Or to life in general? If it's to life in general, my scenario, outlandish as hell though it may be, falls under your idea.

    When you get gas you have a responsibility to consider the reasonably forseeable consequences of your action, yes. However, someone getting shot doesn't fall under that category. Perhaps you could argue that environmental degredation does, or geopolitical problems, however, to argue that one could reasonably forsee what you described is insane.

    I am of the mind that one is accountable for everything they can control. If your abilities include influencing the actions of other people, then this falls on the list, and you're accountable for those actions.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    chasm953 wrote: »
    So does your philosophy apply just to one specific circumstance? Or to life in general? If it's to life in general, my scenario, outlandish as hell though it may be, falls under your idea.

    When you get gas you have a responsibility to consider the reasonably forseeable consequences of your action, yes. However, someone getting shot doesn't fall under that category. Perhaps you could argue that environmental degredation does, or geopolitical problems, however, to argue that one could reasonably forsee what you described is insane.

    Or you could just admit that what you postulated is so heavy-handed and silly as to be ridiculously illogical and impossible to apply "correctly" in any given situation.

    *edit* _J_ put it very well.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    chasm953 wrote: »
    So does your philosophy apply just to one specific circumstance? Or to life in general? If it's to life in general, my scenario, outlandish as hell though it may be, falls under your idea.

    When you get gas you have a responsibility to consider the reasonably forseeable consequences of your action, yes. However, someone getting shot doesn't fall under that category. Perhaps you could argue that environmental degredation does, or geopolitical problems, however, to argue that one could reasonably forsee what you described is insane.

    I am of the mind that one is accountable for everything they can control. If your abilities include influencing the actions of other people, then this falls on the list, and you're accountable for those actions.

    You don't seem to appreciate how little control human beings have over the world in which they exist.

    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
    MrMister, but where do you draw the line? Where does your holisticism end, at what point do you stop judging or attempting to foresee your actions? Reality is laden with infinite possibilities and permutations. I'm not suggesting that you can't guess at certain causes and effects, but if you're arguing that a choice on whether or not to get gas is an action with serious moral weight that must be evaluated, I have to ask which actions do not require evaluation. Is setting my alarm an action with foreseeable consequences? Must I imagine whether or not it can awaken others in the proximity and if so awakened they will be a little angrier, a little more on edge during the day, possibly so much so that it will cause them to perpetrate negativity toward others in their daily dealings? I can foresee so many possibilities for so many minute actions. At what level of minuteness do we stop caring about foreseeable consequences? Or must we relegate all our brainspace to calculating the moral weight of our actions.

    steam_sig.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered 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.

    You really are autistic, aren't you?
    I kiss my girlfriend goodnight and the way i do it reminds her of her boyfriend who raped her and so she goes into a fit. Am I responsible for that? Did i foresee it? No, because if I had foreseen it I wouldn't have done it.

    Wow, it's like you're answering your own questions. That's not forseeable, and you're not responsible. If you did, however, have reason to forsee that she would have an adverse reaction to kissing (say she had told you she was raped and wasn't comfortable with physical contact) then you would be responsible for taking that into account.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    you're making this ridiculously complicated. No, you couldn't foresee that a Cadbury Egg would make someone cry. You can, however, foresee that sleeping with a married woman is going to affect the marriage.

    Everything affects the marriage. Are you implying a negative effect?

    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.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Wow, it's like you're answering your own questions. That's not forseeable, and you're not responsible. If you did, however, have reason to forsee that she would have an adverse reaction to kissing (say she had told you she was raped and wasn't comfortable with physical contact) then you would be responsible for taking that into account.

    OK. I cannot foresee anything. So I'm not responsible for anything?

    How do you determine what one can foresee?

    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.
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what one can foresee?

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

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Reality is laden with infinite possibilities and permutations. I'm not suggesting that you can't guess at certain causes and effects,

    That certainly seems to be what you're arguing--don't be dense. This is the sort of language that we use all the time in our moral evaluations. For example, suppose you give a girl a valentine and she bursts out crying. Her friend might tell you "her boyfriend just broke up with her. Don't worry--there's no way you could have known." This situation is, of course, different from the situation where you did know. As should be obvious.
    Is setting my alarm an action with foreseeable consequences? Must I imagine whether or not it can awaken others in the proximity and if so awakened they will be a little angrier, a little more on edge during the day, possibly so much so that it will cause them to perpetrate negativity toward others in their daily dealings?

    If it's just too much work to consider your alarm clock, then I dub thee the roommate that everyone hates.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what one can foresee?
    This may not work, but try it anyway:

    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.

    Admittedly, that just pushes the question a step back, to what constitutes "those properties that can be reasonably generalized to all human beings". However, I think it's pretty clear that being made upset by a chocolate is pretty not generalizable at all, whereas being made confused by having sex with someone outside of a committed relationship is a property most people would exhibit.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    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?

  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    That certainly seems to be what you're arguing--don't be dense. This is the sort of language that we use all the time in our moral evaluations. For example, suppose you give a girl a valentine and she bursts out crying. Her friend might tell you "her boyfriend just broke up with her. Don't worry--there's no way you could have known." This situation is, of course, different from the situation where you did know. As should be obvious.

    Okay, well, the way you initially stated it was too broad and without qualifications, really. I'm not questioning you out of a desire to be contrary, I genuinely wanted to know how your system applied, what it applied to, and why.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    How do you determine what one can foresee?
    This may not work, but try it anyway:

    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.

    Admittedly, that just pushes the question a step back, to what constitutes "those properties that can be reasonably generalized to all human beings". However, I think it's pretty clear that being made upset by a chocolate is pretty not generalizable at all, whereas being made confused by having sex with someone outside of a committed relationship is a property most people would exhibit.

    We aren't dealing with the physical world, though. We're dealing with emotions and human beings.

    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.

    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?

    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.
  • _J__J_ 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_ 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.

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.