Our actions affecting others

[_Ren]

Is the child to blame for all it's actions or can we blame some of it on the bad decisions made by his/her parents?

You're starting to get into a free will argument there.

Take person A and person B.
Person A decides to rob a grocery store because he was raised by parents who routinely engaged in crime.
Person B decides to rob a grocery store because they enjoy it. It might be that their 'genetic makeup' encourages such behaviour or it's part of their 'spiritual' makeup (I'll include the possibility to keep you theists happy... Heh)

Assuming both person A and person B are adults, do I 'blame' both people for what they did? YES.
Do I blame Person A's parents for raising their child badly? Yes.

A person will be a mish-mash of their environment and their own nature. Some people have the ability to overcome their environment. Others are slaves to it.
But in the end, we are who we are. We can say who we are is because of this, or that. But in the end, it doesn't matter in relation to whether we are accountable for that action.

We talk about things like 'plea of insanity'. But that only affects how we judge them. We still restrict the rights of the 'criminally insane', just the same as we do the 'criminal'. They still suffer the 'penalty' because in the end, it's still their 'system' that fouled up. We just don't think so badly of them is all...

[_The Nehor]

Is the child to blame for all it's actions or can we blame some of it on the bad decisions made by his/her parents?

You're starting to get into a free will argument there.

Take person A and person B.
Person A decides to rob a grocery store because he was raised by parents who routinely engaged in crime.
Person B decides to rob a grocery store because they enjoy it. It might be that their 'genetic makeup' encourages such behaviour or it's part of their 'spiritual' makeup (I'll include the possibility to keep you theists happy... Heh)

Assuming both person A and person B are adults, do I 'blame' both people for what they did? YES.
Do I blame Person A's parents for raising their child badly? Yes.

A person will be a mish-mash of their environment and their own nature. Some people have the ability to overcome their environment. Others are slaves to it.
But in the end, we are who we are. We can say who we are is because of this, or that. But in the end, it doesn't matter in relation to whether we are accountable for that action.

We talk about things like 'plea of insanity'. But that only affects how we judge them. We still restrict the rights of the 'criminally insane', just the same as we do the 'criminal'. They still suffer the 'penalty' because in the end, it's still their 'system' that fouled up. We just don't think so badly of them is all...

Yes, this does lead into a free-will argument. I've assumed free-will so long I didn't catch that I assumed it here. I would also argue that if we have no free-will then this discussion is probably pointless.

I think the question still stands though: Do we have responsibility for trying to use our actions to benefit others in the sense of making them (for lack of a better word) better people? I want to be clear that I'm definitely not talking about a legal responsibility. It is definitely a moral question.

[_Bardman]

I think the question still stands though: Do we have responsibility for trying to use our actions to benefit others in the sense of making them (for lack of a better word) better people? I want to be clear that I'm definitely not talking about a legal responsibility. It is definitely a moral question.

That's not the question. The question was, are we responsible for our own actions alone, or do we bear some responsibility for provoking the acts of others.

The answer is, we are responsible for our own actions, and those only. We can have a negative impact on individuals and society with our actions, but we then incur the penalities for doing so. There are legal consequences for anti-social behavior. Our inclination to engage in certain behaviors when provoked may be a result of our environment, but the mores of the society in which we find ourselves control the nature of the consequences of our actions.

[_Ren]

Do we have responsibility for trying to use our actions to benefit others in the sense of making them (for lack of a better word) better people? I want to be clear that I'm definitely not talking about a legal responsibility. It is definitely a moral question.

Yes, I believe we have a moral responibility to raise our children 'well'.
That's why I say I blame the parents for 'raising a child badly'.

[_The Nehor]

I think the question still stands though: Do we have responsibility for trying to use our actions to benefit others in the sense of making them (for lack of a better word) better people? I want to be clear that I'm definitely not talking about a legal responsibility. It is definitely a moral question.

That's not the question. The question was, are we responsible for our own actions alone, or do we bear some responsibility for provoking the acts of others.

The answer is, we are responsible for our own actions, and those only. We can have a negative impact on individuals and society with our actions, but we then incur the penalities for doing so. There are legal consequences for anti-social behavior. Our inclination to engage in certain behaviors when provoked may be a result of our environment, but the mores of the society in which we find ourselves control the nature of the consequences of our actions.

I think that's an overly simplistic answer that focuses entirely on what is and is not legal. I would personally be afraid of anyone whose code of conduct was defined solely by the legal consequences of their actions.

[_Scottie]

I'm not sure the legalities of our actions are quite so cut and dried.

Are the FLDS women being blamed for their actions, or are they saying they were so brainwashed they didn't know what they were doing? <-- (Asking as an actual question...I don't know how they were treated??)

[_Bardman]

I think the question still stands though: Do we have responsibility for trying to use our actions to benefit others in the sense of making them (for lack of a better word) better people? I want to be clear that I'm definitely not talking about a legal responsibility. It is definitely a moral question.

That's not the question. The question was, are we responsible for our own actions alone, or do we bear some responsibility for provoking the acts of others.

The answer is, we are responsible for our own actions, and those only. We can have a negative impact on individuals and society with our actions, but we then incur the penalities for doing so. There are legal consequences for anti-social behavior. Our inclination to engage in certain behaviors when provoked may be a result of our environment, but the mores of the society in which we find ourselves control the nature of the consequences of our actions.

I think that's an overly simplistic answer that focuses entirely on what is and is not legal. I would personally be afraid of anyone whose code of conduct was defined solely by the legal consequences of their actions.

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.

[_Ren]

I think that's an overly simplistic answer that focuses entirely on what is and is not legal. I would personally be afraid of anyone whose code of conduct was defined solely by the legal consequences of their actions.

Gotta agree with this.
That given, seems to me most law-making in the Western world is often based around a sense of Libertarian thought.
Therefore in most cases - certainly in the modern world - they usuallly jive pretty well with my sense of morality.

[_The Nehor]

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).

[_Scottie]

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.

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