Responsibility

[FinalEnigma]

Rather than arguing that brains are computers and getting into that debate I have a different approach.

Nothing anyone does, is their fault.

When a human is faced with a choice, they have two categories of variables which go into the decision. Their lifetime experiences, and their genetic predispositions. There are no other sources of variables available.

Now, lets go back way into the beginning of a person's lifetime. Before they have made any decisions, the only thing they have is their experience and genetic predispositions. And no choice they have previously made has affected their experiences because they have not yet made any choices.

1)Are there any sources or variable which go into the decision making process other than experiences and genetics? if so, what?
2)if not, how can a person be responsible for any action(positive or negative) that they take?

[nygreenguy]

Now, lets go back way into the beginning of a person's lifetime. Before they have made any decisions, the only thing they have is their experience and genetic predispositions. And no choice they have previously made has affected their experiences because they have not yet made any choices.

So infancy? We simply use our innate behaviors during this time.

1)Are there any sources or variable which go into the decision making process other than experiences and genetics? if so, what?

None that I can think so

2)if not, how can a person be responsible for any action(positive or negative) that they take?

For one, many morals are based in our genes. Some people simply do have the "bad" genes, and holding them responsible is unfair, but is a requirement in a civilized society.

now, most of us are not like these. We have had "experiences". We know what is right and what is wrong. We know what is legal and what is illegal. So I really dont see the relationship between the 2 questions. Most infants dont kill people.

[McCulloch]

Nothing anyone does, is their fault.

Imagine how this concept might change the judicial system! Instead of being punitive or at least partly punitive, it might be a system focused on prevention, rehabilitation and the protection of citizens. The defense of not-guilty by reason of insanity would be gone. It does not matter if you are or were in sane, it just matters whether you did the deed and whether you are likely to do it again.

[FinalEnigma]

This post was stupid and not what I meant, so I'm removing it to avoid confusion.

[FinalEnigma]

Nothing anyone does, is their fault.

Imagine how this concept might change the judicial system! Instead of being punitive or at least partly punitive, it might be a system focused on prevention, rehabilitation and the protection of citizens. The defense of not-guilty by reason of insanity would be gone. It does not matter if you are or were in sane, it just matters whether you did the deed and whether you are likely to do it again.

That is part of my point. if this were accepted as true, then the point of the judicial system would become to add to the persons experiences in a way that causes them to make better choices, or if that does not seem possible then to place them somewhere where they cannot harm society. punishment for the sake of punishment is stupid. the only valuable, moral, and logical punishment is corrective/rehabilitative. And it has been shown that pure punishment is not the most effective form of behavioral modification.

[nygreenguy]

The point of mentioning going back to the first decision made is that you could say that their experiences are a result of the choices they have made in their lifetime, and if the choices they have made are all traceable back to initial experience before making choices, then it still isn't their fault.

I disagree. We have an infinite number of experiences in our daily lives, only some of which influence our decisions.

Let not confuse a correlation with a causation.

[FinalEnigma]

The point of mentioning going back to the first decision made is that you could say that their experiences are a result of the choices they have made in their lifetime, and if the choices they have made are all traceable back to initial experience before making choices, then it still isn't their fault.

I disagree. We have an infinite number of experiences in our daily lives, only some of which influence our decisions.

At this point I must ask...
So? even if only a tiny fraction of our experience have any real effect on us that doesn't really change anything.

also, I'm not sure here why that objection applies. I don't think I asserted otherwise.

[nygreenguy]

At this point I must ask...
So? even if only a tiny fraction of our experience have any real effect on us that doesn't really change anything.

also, I'm not sure here why that objection applies. I don't think I asserted otherwise.

This is what I object with:

experiences are a result of the choices they have made in their lifetime

I think its sort of reversed. But my brains to fried to think philosophically tonight!

[FinalEnigma]

Oh!

My apologies I didn't quite type what I meant.

What I meant was that one could argue that some of a person's experience are a result of their choices, and that therefore their experiences are partially their responsibility, but that they would be wrong because if you go back fr enough to a person's infancy there will be a time where they have yet to make any choices, and therefore previous choices could not have affected their current experiences/circumstances.

I'm sorry, that was completely my fault.

[JoeyKnothead]

Rather than arguing that brains are computers and getting into that debate I have a different approach.

Nothing anyone does, is their fault.

When a human is faced with a choice, they have two categories of variables which go into the decision. Their lifetime experiences, and their genetic predispositions. There are no other sources of variables available.

Now, lets go back way into the beginning of a person's lifetime. Before they have made any decisions, the only thing they have is their experience and genetic predispositions. And no choice they have previously made has affected their experiences because they have not yet made any choices.

1)Are there any sources or variable which go into the decision making process other than experiences and genetics? if so, what?
2)if not, how can a person be responsible for any action(positive or negative) that they take?

1- While I'm unaware of a specific case in humans, there are certain organisms which attack a host animal, and can cause that animal to act for the organism. Ants and crickets/grasshoppers can get these.

2- Good point, and on one level I can agree. Like where a child who is abused can grow up to be an abuser. But then if I was made aware of the damage that hitting other people causes, wouldn't I then be expected to be responsible, and quit hitting other folks?

I'm not the brightest knife in the shed, so I look forward to an analysis of my position.