DiscussMormonism.com

This is a breakoff of the rape thread (and PLEASE I don't want to even mention the R word anymore).

One point that I believe wasn't being clearly addressed is the role of personal actions and their effect others.

It seemed that the general consensus was that we are only responsible for OUR decisions and OUR actions only.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Our actions don't exist in a vacuum. Every action we make somehow affects the decisions someone else has to make.

So, is it really as simple as saying I'm responsible for my actions and my actions only? Or, in the real world, do we need to take responsibility for how our actions affect others? Or is their response to our action completely on them?

Scottie wrote:This is a breakoff of the rape thread (and PLEASE I don't want to even mention the R word anymore).

One point that I believe wasn't being clearly addressed is the role of personal actions and their effect others.

It seemed that the general consensus was that we are only responsible for OUR decisions and OUR actions only.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Our actions don't exist in a vacuum. Every action we make somehow affects the decisions someone else has to make.

So, is it really as simple as saying I'm responsible for my actions and my actions only? Or, in the real world, do we need to take responsibility for how our actions affect others? Or is their response to our action completely on them?

I agree we do not exist in a vacuum. We can effect others negatively or positively by our actions. We may hurt others, we may defraud others, we may lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. The actions that we took that impacted on another person is only our responsibility. To the ones that are affected by our actions -- they choose how they in turn react and they are responsible for their own actions in response.

I don't see how understanding everyone is responsible for their own actions can not at the same time exist along side the thought process that we also impact others with our actions. These are not contradictory in nature.

Moniker wrote:I don't see how understanding everyone is responsible for their own actions can not at the same time exist along side the thought process that we also impact others with our actions. These are not contradictory in nature.

But they can be.

If I were to believe that my actions are simply my actions and how others respond to my actions is their problem, I should have no qualm lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If someone else doesn't like it, well, that is their choice to respond that way. Maybe they should have just chosen to ignore it. I don't care how they respond. That is up to them, not me. I'm not responsible for their reaction.

Scottie wrote:

Moniker wrote:I don't see how understanding everyone is responsible for their own actions can not at the same time exist along side the thought process that we also impact others with our actions. These are not contradictory in nature.

But they can be.

If I were to believe that my actions are simply my actions and how others respond to my actions is their problem, I should have no qualm lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If someone else doesn't like it, well, that is their choice to respond that way. Maybe they should have just chosen to ignore it. I don't care how they respond. That is up to them, not me. I'm not responsible for their reaction.

Well, I believe that my actions are my responsibility, that I have a responsibility to not negatively impact others and I do have qualms with lying, cheating, stealing, etc...

I am responsible for infringing upon another's liberty, autonomy, etc.... and should be held accountable for hurting others in society. That I understand I and I alone am responsible for hurting another person is a mesh of the understanding that my actions are mine alone and I also can recognize that they can impact others.

I don't really get where you're going with this, Scottie. Our entire society is pretty much premised on the thought that individuals are accountable for their own actions and that we should navigate within society with the least harm to others.

Moniker wrote:I don't really get where you're going with this, Scottie. Our entire society is pretty much premised on the thought that individuals are accountable for their own actions and that we should navigate within society with the least harm to others.

Ok, well, to maybe steer this a different direction, I've seen time and time again how ex-mo's on here blame the leaders of the LDS church for the actions of the members.

Are the leaders in any way what-so-ever responsible for the actions of the members?

Scottie,

It's not about whether you affect anybody else. Of course you do - every single day. So do I, so does everybody else.
This is about who is to blame for what.

If you lie to somebody, you are 'to blame' for that, and no doubt you could affect someone else negatively. Let's call them person A.

Now - person A gets to react.

Let's say the lie was 'You look lovely in that dress', but you didn't really think that. Let's say Person A somehow knows you're lying, and gives you a slap.
Were you to 'blame' for your action? No - I wouldn't blame you for anything. If anything, you were trying to be nice.
Do I 'blame' person A for their reaction? Yes. You were only trying to be nice, and you got a slap for your trouble. Person 'A' is to blame for slapping you.

Let's say the lie was 'I really have replaced your brake pads', when actually you haven't replaced their brake pads. Not only that, but you are FULLY AWARE that you haven't.
Person A goes out driving their car, the brakes fail and they nearly kill not only themselves, but some others who were on / around the road.

Let's consider three possible reactions of person A:

1. Forgives you. They think it is good to forgive, and hey - nobody's perfect.
2. Comes round and thumps you.
3. Uses every avalible avenue of the law to prosecute you to the fullest extent possible.

Let's consider how 'blame' is assigned:

Senario 1 - you both deserved to be blamed. You deserve to be blamed for telling a dangerous lie. Person A deserves to be blamed for not holding you accountable for such a dangerous act, thereby very possibly allowing danger to continue - i.e. allow you to keep working on people's cars.

Senario 2 - You are to be blamed for telling a dangerous lie. I wouldn't consider Person A wrong for hitting you - it's the least you deserved. But I still blame Person A for not getting the law involved and not making sure you couldn't put more people in danger.

Senario 3 - You are to blame for telling a dangerous lie. Person A has no blame whatsoever, and had the correct reaction.


We ALL choose our actions.
We ALL choose our reactions.

I think you are trying to make something quite simple more complicated than it really is.

Renegade, that sounds great and is true but is there some way we can be culpable for someone else's actions? How about careless and stupid parents who raise a hellion? 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? If we can, can't this to a lesser degree apply to interactions among adults?

Incitement to violence is against the law. So, your point is noted. Now. The person that actually enacts that violent act is solely responsible for his act. Each person has culpability. That being said, I get the sense a fallacy of equivocation is coming along pretty soon...

antishock8 wrote:Incitement to violence is against the law. So, your point is noted. Now. The person that actually enacts that violent act is solely responsible for his act. Each person has culpability. That being said, I get the sense a fallacy of equivocation is coming along pretty soon...

No, no trap.

I was in the vast minority in the other thread, so I feel like I must be missing something. I'm trying to get a better perspective on this.

Scottie wrote:Ok, well, to maybe steer this a different direction, I've seen time and time again how ex-mo's on here blame the leaders of the LDS church for the actions of the members.

Are the leaders in any way what-so-ever responsible for the actions of the members?

Interesting point.

That depends on whether the church leaders knowingly engaged in fraud. The church actively seeks to create a cult of obedience. They develop in the members a deep sense of infallibility in the official doctrine of the church, and the idea that you can never go wrong by following the prophet.

However, when all is said and done, an individual's actions remain his own responsibility.