Our actions affecting others

[_Bardman]

The law is what we humans use in a civilized society to determine what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. It originates in our history, our commen sense and common experiences. It defines how we as people want to live and how we should treat each other.

In the absence of a society where everyone acts in a socially acceptable manner simply because to do so is right and moral, the law is a pretty good substitute. Since there are those who don't care for society as a whole, and have no regard for morality, fear of legal consequences for criminal behavior is what we use to keep such people in line.

I don't think there's anything overly simplistic about it. And if there is, what do you propose we use instead? Assuming, of course, you're not going to say something like, "We could all follow the teachings of Christ." That's precisely the reason we have laws. People don't treat others as they would like to be treated themselves.

I think the law is a poor substitute for moral behavior. It functions as a last-ditch backup more then anything else. However, I wasn't speaking about coming up with an effective way to alter society. I was wondering how we as individuals choose our actions based on their effects on others and whether as a society we should have standards in this area (not legal ones, social ones).

You can't separate the law from society or morality. Legal behavior by definition is moral behavior. It is the behavior society has deemed to be correct and of value. The law is nothing more than a codification of what we as a society think we ought to do in order to preserve order and freedom in our society. It is based on our common sense of morality. It is also based on the idea that we as a society have agreed that we should work together to preserve order, instead of allowing each person to decide how to do that for himself. Anti-social behavior damages the whole society, and by placing legal limits on behavior, society as a whole prevents the chaos that would ensue if each person acted independently to curb anti-social behavior.

The idea of social consequences instead of legal consequences is too fuzzy. What do you mean by that? If a person is a jerk, nobody invites him to parties anymore. That is a social consequence. But if a person infringes on the rights of another, society as a whole is hurt, as well as the individual victim. Since this is the case, society as a whole takes action through the legal system.

[_Moniker]

I was wondering how we as individuals choose our actions based on their effects on others and whether as a society we should have standards in this area (not legal ones, social ones).

We do have social standards which is why we're all in agreement that lying (outside of business), cheating during monopoly, stealing a friend's pooh bear is not the correct code of conduct. How do we recognize our actions impact others? We are told so by our parents (hopefully), we may be taught that in Church, we may be indoctrinated with ethics from our school system, we may take courses in college that teach ethical conduct, we may have a trial and error life of learning how to navigate safely with the least harm to self and others. We obviously also are born with an ability to empathize (most of us) and recognize when we hurt others. Obviously some people do not have qualms with doing things to hurt others and are quite skilled at this.

Yet, the question is not this, is it?

The questions were: Are we alone responsible for our own behaviors? What responsibility do we have to those we may impact with our behaviors?

Our society has come to a conclusion through our legal code as well as pretty much uniform code of societal conduct that makes it universally wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc... There are shades of grey in scenarios and, yet, there is consensus that the person causing harm is responsible for the harm. The harm must be duly noted, and restitution can be a part of the notice of the harm.

I think where this is getting complicated is the reality that someone may not care that they cause harm to others. Well, that's just life and which is why we draw up contracts, legislation, and try to choose our friends wisely.

[_Bardman]

Except, of course, that there are no laws against lying (outside of business), adultery, being a jerk, teasing, yelling, etc.

Lying: And perjury, false information to a police officer, filing a false police report, etc.
Adultery: Still on the books in some jurisdictions. And can have negative legal consequences when determining divorce settlements.
Being a jerk: Within a certain radius, true. Outside that radius, disturbing the peace.
Teasing: True.
Yelling: Disturbing the peace. 415 PC in California.

However, must we have codified responses to all these things? Freedom means freedom to be a jerk. The consequence is nobody likes you. If you can live with that, be a jerk. I have the right to say almost anything I please. You have the right to be offended by what I say. You don't have the right to punch me for offending you.

[_Scottie]

I was wondering how we as individuals choose our actions based on their effects on others and whether as a society we should have standards in this area (not legal ones, social ones).

We do have social standards which is why we're all in agreement that lying (outside of business), cheating during monopoly, stealing a friend's pooh bear is not the correct code of conduct. How do we recognize our actions impact others? We are told so by our parents (hopefully), we may be taught that in Church, we may be indoctrinated with ethics from our school system, we may take courses in college that teach ethical conduct, we may have a trial and error life of learning how to navigate safely with the least harm to self and others. We obviously also are born with an ability to empathize (most of us) and recognize when we hurt others. Obviously some people do not have qualms with doing things to hurt others and are quite skilled at this.

Yet, the question is not this, is it?

The questions were: Are we alone responsible for our own behaviors? What responsibility do we have to those we may impact with our behaviors?

Our society has come to a conclusion through our legal code as well as pretty much uniform code of societal conduct that makes it universally wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc... There are shades of grey in scenarios and, yet, there is consensus that the person causing harm is responsible for the harm. The harm must be duly noted, and restitution can be a part of the notice of the harm.

I think where this is getting complicated is the reality that someone may not care that they cause harm to others. Well, that's just life and which is why we draw up contracts, legislation, and try to choose our friends wisely.

Very well said.

[_beastie]

Scottie,

Of course our actions affect others. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Extenuating circumstances, like the actions of others, can be legally and morally considered in evaluating the behaviors of others. The behavior of others can help us to understand an individual's particular behavior, but that does not mean that the individual is no longer accountable or responsible for that particular behavior.

[_antishock8]

I see this once in a while in ex-Mormons (or soon-to-be-ex-Mormons). They literally have to reprogram their minds into normalcy. They spend a lifetime of being indoctrinated to believe black is white, good is evil... And to have conversation like this one, along with the thread that covers rape is a reminder of the damage the Mormon church inflicts on one's mental state.

Scotte, I'm not talking down to you. In fact, I love that you're willing to put yourself out there. This is the process that a lot of us went through in order to figure things out. I think you're exploring these issues because on some level you're reorienting your normalcy detector. The Mormon church is full of crap. There's a reason why people think it's a cult... Because it is, and it's self-evident in some of the things that have manifested itself recently on this board. Good on you for forging ahead, anyway.

[_asbestosman]

As others have said, there's assault and there's aggrivated assault. That said, I do not see how an individual who is assaulted can be told that he had some of that (maybe 10% of it) comming. The individual who is attacked is precisely as guilty or culpable as one who also incites another to violence but is not attacked.

[_Scottie]

I see this once in a while in ex-Mormons (or soon-to-be-ex-Mormons). They literally have to reprogram their minds into normalcy. They spend a lifetime of being indoctrinated to believe black is white, good is evil... And to have conversation like this one, along with the thread that covers rape is a reminder of the damage the Mormon church inflicts on one's mental state.

Scotte, I'm not talking down to you. In fact, I love that you're willing to put yourself out there. This is the process that a lot of us went through in order to figure things out. I think you're exploring these issues because on some level you're reorienting your normalcy detector. The Mormon church is full of s***. There's a reason why people think it's a cult... Because it is, and it's self-evident in some of the things that have manifested itself recently on this board. Good on you for forging ahead, anyway.

Thanks, AS.

I think you are right. Being born and raised TBM, I have some pretty misguided views on women. Something that I hate about myself, but I'm trying to learn how the REAL world is. Staying in Utah isn't helping me much, either, so I'm glad I have you guys to help me re-align my perspectives.

Another example is that I believed, absolutely, that women just didn't like sex. I thought that if you could actually find a woman that enjoyed sex, you should hang on to her because she is a diamond in the rough!!

It is just recently that I've actually come to accept that women do indeed enjoy sex!

So, thanks all for being patient with me. I'll get there.