In The Grapes of Wrath a farmer confronts a tractor driver who is about to bulldoze his shack. The farmer threatens to shoot him, but the driver protests;
"It's not me. There's nothing I can do. I'll lose my job if I don't do it. And look - suppose you kill me? They'll just hang you, but long before you're hung there'll be another guy on the tractor, and he'll bump the house down. You're not killing the right guy."
And of course, this starts a long twisting trail. Who does the farmer shoot to stop his shack being bulldozed? The bank who ordered it? The Board of Directors? The investors of the bank who demanded more profit? The driver can reach only one conclusion; "Maybe there's nobody to shoot."
Ceding power to an external authority makes these acts so much easier, doesn't it? If you don't do it, somebody else would. It isn't your decision, it is just the rules. Just following orders, that's all. Nobody can blame you for just following orders.
This logic disgusts me. The systems that have sprung up may very well be 'impossible to shoot', but that doesn't mean that individuals are not culpable for their actions. Yet this is forgotten as people seem uneasy with the idea of seeing anyone punished for acting 'within the rules'. Even when those rules are wrong, or perverted. Hell, sometimes, even blatant evidence that 'the rules' have been broken isn't enough to rile up some actual action. Take the MP expenses scandal over here, for instance, where there was a lot of blatant evidence that 'the rules' were being ignored. Everyone expects politicians to be corrupt, so the status quo remained unchallenged. Some MPs were ousted, some stood down, but nowhere near as many as deserved it. There was no true outcry. No protest. The politicians universally held up their hands and said, 'we were acting in the rules'.
Banking seems to be this writ large, the powerful financial elite can do whatever they like, the idea of actually seizing their money from them has never even been broached in the mainstream. Because they got that money acting within the rules. Without rules, what do we have? That's the argument I've heard against making these people suffer for the damage they've caused to so many millions of other people. Without rules, we'd face the complete collapse of society!
Well guess what. Society is breaking down anyway. We're heading into decades of pain, whilst the people who did this to us have the cash to ride it out uncaring. I actually heard sympathy for the bankers when it was revealed some of them weren't going to get such huge bonuses. Actual sympathy for the few bastards who were turfed out on their overfed arses. Never mind that they, and their families, for generations, will be set up on the back of the cash they've stolen. Never mind that these people are scum who deliberately squeezed a failing system for personal profit.
Speak out against it and you are labeled as a communist or an anarchist or any other 'extremist' handy tag. Get stared at like a lunatic suggesting that we all just vacate to Mars or some other such nonsense. The truth is, I don't care whether seizing the assets of the bankers would help get us out of the crisis. I don't give a damn if it would save one job.
I just feel like I'm standing in front of my house, watching this bulldozer get closer and closer, and I don't care if it would actually help... I want to shoot that fucking driver dead, because if I'm going down, I want to take the bastard who is responsible down with me. Or is it better to just step aside and let them smash everything to pieces, and go home to sleep easy with a paycheck in their pocket?
"No one part of any cybernetic system can control the whole of the system, nor can it fully control itself."
I don't know if shooting the tractor driver actually helps anything.
So let's take a squint at this idea of Responsibility. Essentially we're talking about agency. Free will.
So first off, I want to point out that the individual only has an identity when juxtaposed with a group. If we all lived on our own personal islands, we'd have no need of names. Identity is a social convention. So we can't ignore the effects of social psychology - groups and systems have a higher degree of influence over an individuals' actions than most of his private motivations.
Your actions are a function of the tensions between various internal systems. The guy driving the tractor has a family at home, a house he doesn't want bulldozed, an alpha male telling him to do his job, and a narrative which explains why he has to do all this. He is acting as the agent of a larger metabiological organism,one which needs resources for its own survival. The entity cannot drive a bulldozer, it needs humans to act on its behalf in the material world. So in order to act in his own best interest, the bulldozer driver has to carry out the instructions from the greater organism. That poor bulldozer driver can't choose to save your house any more than a white blood cell can decide that a particular bacterium can stay.
We're all like this - we're individuals, but we're also components of a numerous larger systems. I do not believe we ever have complete control over ourselves, each of us contain numerous systems looking to further themselves through us.
It's not right to blame the tractor driver because he is not the agent. He is not the one bulldozing the house, the responsibility is doled out amongst the various agents of metabiological organisms. This doesn't make one free of blame, but it does stop them from monopolizing the responsibility. Think about a traffic jam - there is no single keystone sustaining the thing's structure. You can't fix a traffic jam by destroying the car right in front of you.
So how do you actually get the metabiological organism to not want to bulldoze your house anymore?
This is largely what the Art of Memetics (http://artofmemetics.com/) is about - it's about understanding the nested systems within us and the systems nested around us and figuring out how to connect the two. It talks about how individuals and groups of individuals (corporations, religions, governments) have basically the same structure - a network of nodes blasting information at one another. And there is an art to creating and positioning your ideas in a way so that they are picked up and retransmitted by others, thereby incorporating them into the superorganism's programming.
Quote from: CramulusSo first off, I want to point out that the individual only has an identity when juxtaposed with a group. If we all lived on our own personal islands, we'd have no need of names. Identity is a social convention. So we can't ignore the effects of social psychology - groups and systems have a higher degree of influence over an individuals' actions than most of his private motivations.
I'm not entirely convinced by this. Even if we all lived on private islands, we'd need to distinguish between ourselves and our surroundings. I do not accept that identity is a social convention. I've seen no strong argument as to why this is the case. I accept that groups and systems have a high degree of influence, though; that's what the rant is about. Just because this
is the case does not mean it
should be the case. Personal responsibility is too often allowed to be given up to a 'higher authority'.
Quote from: CramulusYour actions are a function of the tensions between various internal systems. The guy driving the tractor has a family at home, a house he doesn't want bulldozed, an alpha male telling him to do his job, and a narrative which explains why he has to do all this. He is acting as the agent of a larger metabiological organism,one which needs resources for its own survival. The entity cannot drive a bulldozer, it needs humans to act on its behalf in the material world. So in order to act in his own best interest, the bulldozer driver has to carry out the instructions from the greater organism. That poor bulldozer driver can't choose to save your house any more than a white blood cell can decide that a particular bacterium can stay.
Although the analogy of a metabiological system is an interesting one, it is not one to which I subscribe. Yes, this is a very neat explanation for how one can justify giving up responsibility for ones own actions to a larger system. It is undeniably in the driver's best interests to bulldoze my house. It might also be in my best interests to go out and mug people. The driver, however, does have far greater choice than a white blood cell. He makes the conscious decision to act. He pushes down on the gas and drives his engine forward. He can choose not to. He does not. He must, therefore, bear responsibility for acting in this way in a fashion that a white blood cell is not.
My actions are certainly
influenced by a series of internal tensions. But they are not determined by them. I have empathy, and imagination. These two things allow a person to step outside of themselves and their own concerns, and consider external factors, including how it would be to be in the position of someone else with their own set of internal tensions. To put it in a rather overblown way, the fact that the nazi concentration camp guard had his own set of internal tensions and maybe even went home every night to his loving family who relied on him for support, does not justify his brutal actions in the day. We must all take responsibility for what we do, because we are not machines who have no choice. We are far more complicated than that.
Quote from: CramulusWe're all like this - we're individuals, but we're also components of a numerous larger systems. I do not believe we ever have complete control over ourselves, each of us contain numerous systems looking to further themselves through us.
That depends heavily on how you define complete control. I would agree that we have a massive amount of demands and systems which we need to balance. But I do not believe this alleviates us of the fundamental ability to choose to act in defiance of those systems. The systems themselves are not conscious, they might have the ability to make life difficult if we choose to ignore them, but they do not exert such massive control as to force your hand to move. As you said, the system relies on human components to act in its interest. We all have the capability to rebel, even if we do not often exercise it.
Quote from: CramulusIt's not right to blame the tractor driver because he is not the agent. He is not the one bulldozing the house, the responsibility is doled out amongst the various agents of metabiological organisms. This doesn't make one free of blame, but it does stop them from monopolizing the responsibility. Think about a traffic jam - there is no single keystone sustaining the thing's structure. You can't fix a traffic jam by destroying the car right in front of you.
I would say that the tractor driver absolute
is the agent. At least the agent who matters to me. The decisions of other actors might have led to this one, but that does not matter. The action which is most important is the one which ends with the outcome which harms people. Certainly, others have acted to pressure him into this position. But he is still wrong, and he must still bear responsibility for it. Not absolute responsibility; we can empathise with him and see what led him to this. But more than enough to justify blaming him for driving that tractor through that house. Because that is his decision, and he must take the weight of it.
The traffic jam analogy is a good one, but it breaks down at a couple of levels. First, the cars are physically stopped from moving by the blockage. There is no way that the one in front of me could choose to change its position, where I would argue that the tractor driver absolutely could. Second, it assumes that the goal is to fix the problem.
I admit that shooting the tractor driver will not solve the issue of someone wanting to bulldoze my house. However, the latter may well be beyond my means as an individual entity to fix. The former is not. As the system relies on individuals to enforce its collective decisions, the only way to break that system is to have the individual elements rebel. The clearest way I can see to do that is to bring back the idea that individuals
are responsible for how they choose to act
in spite of the demands that various internal tensions place upon them.
In other words; the act of punishment once on individuals will not fix the system. Repeatedly punishing people who choose to be the agents of systems which harm society, however, will cause a shift towards such people thinking about what they are doing.
My friend came up with a similar idea for government called 'The Ministry of Hitting Stupid Politicians With a Big Stick.' Without the threat of actual, tangible punishment for acting in harmful ways, most people don't feel compelled to give a damn.
Quote from: CramulusSo how do you actually get the metabiological organism to not want to bulldoze your house anymore?
This is largely what the Art of Memetics is about - it's about understanding the nested systems within us and the systems nested around us and figuring out how to connect the two. It talks about how individuals and groups of individuals (corporations, religions, governments) have basically the same structure - a network of nodes blasting information at one another. And there is an art to creating and positioning your ideas in a way so that they are picked up and retransmitted by others, thereby incorporating them into the superorganism's programming.
I found the Art of Memetics very interesting, but I'm not convinced on its model. The flow of information might be one way to try and influence these systems, but I think that there are some entrenched norms and some elite systems that are effectively immune to memetic influence.
On the other hand, perhaps this is just a matter of how I'm choosing to perceive my argument. Another way of looking at it might be; how would our systems look if we could force the idea of personal responsibility to supersede all other demands?
I do not believe, at the moment, that people take enough responsibility for the way their actions
knowingly impact others. There is too much readiness to fall back on justifications for hurting other people, and hiding behind rules which state the exact parameters in which it is okay to act in a harmful manner. I am arguing that immediate and tangible acts of punishment would help to reverse this. Perhaps an information based approach would also work, but I'm not sold on the underpinnings of it vis a vis the individual, and I think it would take far longer and be far more difficult to position in our modern culture.
If you shoot enough tractor drivers eventually it will become very difficult to find replacement drivers.
Shoot the driver, to hell with his whining.
Shoot the people who come to hang you.
Shoot until you die, or surrender to hopelessness and die anyway.
At least if you die shooting, you fall over right away instead of crying in misery on your knees.
Sorry, I ain't big into big debates when it comes to something like this.
it may be very satisfying to shoot the messenger, but ultimately you are not solving the problem or helping yourself.
I hold it's far more effective to treat the problem like an organism, and not like it's the responsibility of one individual. In Michael Moore's flick Capitalism: A Love Story, he showed a bit about Michigan factory workers who were laid off and denied their last three weeks of pay. They eventually beat the system because they organized -- they formed a mastermind group -- which was better suited to resist and negotiate with the mastermind group responsible for firing them.
The problem with this type of radical responsibility is that we are all parts of numerous systems which all include some evil. If you want to hold the tractor driver personally responsible for bulldozing your house, the same logic makes you the evil agent behind stuff like, say, environmental damage. And while you may feel in some way personally responsible for making the environment better, if some eco terrorist killed you, it wouldn't solve the problem.
"There's one solution to any problem, no matter how big: Just keep cutting until it isn't a problem anymore." -J. Howlett
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 02:32:40 PM
it may be very satisfying to shoot the messenger, but ultimately you are not solving the problem or helping yourself.
I hold it's far more effective to treat the problem like an organism, and not like it's the responsibility of one individual. In Michael Moore's flick Capitalism: A Love Story, he showed a bit about Michigan factory workers who were laid off and denied their last three weeks of pay. They eventually beat the system because they organized -- they formed a mastermind group -- which was better suited to resist and negotiate with the mastermind group responsible for firing them.
The problem with this type of radical responsibility is that we are all parts of numerous systems which all include some evil. If you want to hold the tractor driver personally responsible for bulldozing your house, the same logic makes you the evil agent behind stuff like, say, environmental damage. And while you may feel in some way personally responsible for making the environment better, if some eco terrorist killed you, it wouldn't solve the problem.
Let's say you have a problem with AT&T. You decide to call and complain. Going in you know that you are going to speak to a drone. If you pitch a big enough fit, you get a drone supervisor. You are helpless if they choose not to address your issue. You have a take it or leave it situation then.
It's because of the size of the beast you are fighting. You will never find the head, so all you have left is whatever tentacle you can reach. In the example I gave you usually have the option to leave. In the OP we are discussing your home, not so many options with that one.
When fighting a beast that size you may attract the heads attention if you chop enough tentacles, but by doing nothing, well, nothing is what you become.
But then again, I am a country boy and we tend to hit whatever is right in front of us.
Come after my home and family, be you drone or queen, my part will be the same. To stop you.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
When fighting a beast that size you may attract the heads attention if you chop enough tentacles, but by doing nothing, well, nothing is what you become.
I understand what you're saying - I just want to clarify that my position is not that one should "do nothing". Just that one should focus their energy on productive solutions. Shooting the messenger? You'll be in jail or dead by the end of the day. And a murderer.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 02:51:49 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
When fighting a beast that size you may attract the heads attention if you chop enough tentacles, but by doing nothing, well, nothing is what you become.
I understand what you're saying - I just want to clarify that my position is not that one should "do nothing". Just that one should focus their energy on productive solutions. Shooting the messenger? You'll be in jail or dead by the end of the day. And a murderer.
Murderer? Not in my opinion. If I inform the tractor driver that I will shoot him, and he continues to come, that is not murder. Again, in my opinion, his weapon was a tractor, mine will be a gun, and I contend in the context of the OP, it will be self defense.
But now we are arguing semantics.
yeahhh that's a bit of a stretch, the police will definitely call it a murder, but I see what you're suggesting
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 03:05:09 PM
yeahhh that's a bit of a stretch, the police will definitely call it a murder, but I see what you're suggesting
I agree.
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
I have this thing about overreacting when someone is trying to flatten my house.
But its not just the guy on the tractor. Its also the guy in the house who thought he would get a loan on a farm and make his dream come true, he willingly entered into a agreement, he is responsible for his actions. His neighbors are responsible for their choice of action or inaction when they see the tractor show up to knock the house down. There is a Machine, there is a Social System, Memetic Entities... but their existence doesn't remove responsibility or culpability from the individual. It simply provides a model that helps us understand 'Why' someone may choose to act like an asshole.
I think individuals are responsible for their choice to act. The act may be an order from on high, but the individual is capable of determining the rightness or wrongness of the act.
....Or the farmer could just pay his mortgage in the first place, and he doesn't have to shoot anybody.
The fact is that if a bank is in such a position as to bulldoze your house, then it is because the house is not really yours. You are borrowing it, or renting it, or whatever, and it belongs to someone else who has a right to do whatever they want to with it. The farmer in this case seems to have overestimated his position.
It may be sad for him that he's about to lose everything, but society works on rules, and as much as I admire bending or breaking the rules to achieve a better system, shooting people is not going to help much, especially when it's just a lone farmer and he breaks a fundamental rule (Don't Kill People) over a pile of sticks that doesn't even belong to him.
I agree with Cram -- large superbiological creatures like Governments and Banks do not deal as equals with individuals. Individuals must form other organizations which then can deal as equals to Governments or Banks. By himself, an Individual, however noble and right, is simply not worth considering from the perspective of a large organization. No amount of flying lead is going to change that reality.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
Sure, in this instance.. what if instead, the guy was there to carry off the brown people hiding in your attic? Where's the line between "that asshole wants to knock down my building" and "That asshole wants to recapture these folk and drag them back to their plantation owners"? Once that line is crossed, is it still just a guy doing his job? Would fighting him, maybe killing him be overreacting?
What if killing him meant you could get the escapees to a different safe location?
If you just give them up, do you bear any responsibility?
How did we get to the assumptions that the farmer was behind in payments or not the owner? Are you going to make me read Grapes of Wrath again?
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
Sure, in this instance.. what if instead, the guy was there to carry off the brown people hiding in your attic? Where's the line between "that asshole wants to knock down my building" and "That asshole wants to recapture these folk and drag them back to their plantation owners"? Once that line is crossed, is it still just a guy doing his job? Would fighting him, maybe killing him be overreacting?
What if killing him meant you could get the escapees to a different safe location?
If you just give them up, do you bear any responsibility?
There's a lot of things involved. I am a straight up pacifist, you couldn't make me kill anyone. I would, however, defend to the best of my ability what I hold dear and important.
Whatever you do, in the end, no one really wins. You may keep your home for a few more months. You may get off on the murder charges, but then the guy's family will sue you in civil court and guess what.....
New driver to shoot?
The blame goes on us for allowing things to get this far. For bailing out the banks when there are people out there starving and homeless. It's one thing to fight for your family's lives and their home. I think most people would do that. But what will your family do when you are in jail or dead?
There is no happy medium and no win win situation.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:31:02 PM
How did we get to the assumptions that the farmer was behind in payments or not the owner? Are you going to make me read Grapes of Wrath again?
People's houses don't generally get bulldozed for no reason at all (except in Palestine). If there are no legal grounds for the bulldozing, then of course the bulldozer driver is culpable, as is everyone else. But that would be an aberration so the discussion in that case is more a novelty than a critique on the way society works as a rule.
Casy goes with Tom to the Joad property only to find it deserted. They meet up there with Muley (John Qualen) who is hiding out there. In a flashback, he describes how farmers all over the area were forced from their farms by the deed holders of the land, including a striking scene where a local boy (Irving Bacon), hired for the purpose, knocks down Muley's house with a Caterpillar tractor. Following this, Tom and Casy move on to find the Joad family at Tom's uncle John's place. His family is happy to see Tom and explain they have made plans to head for California in search of employment as their farm has been foreclosed by the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath_%28film%29
This does change things.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 08, 2010, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:31:02 PM
How did we get to the assumptions that the farmer was behind in payments or not the owner? Are you going to make me read Grapes of Wrath again?
People's houses don't generally get bulldozed for no reason at all (except in Palestine). If there are no legal grounds for the bulldozing, then of course the bulldozer driver is culpable, as is everyone else. But that would be an aberration so the discussion in that case is more a novelty than a critique on the way society works as a rule.
Or Imminent Domain ala Arthur Dent's home (and planet Earth) in Hitchhiker's Guide.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
Sure, in this instance.. what if instead, the guy was there to carry off the brown people hiding in your attic? Where's the line between "that asshole wants to knock down my building" and "That asshole wants to recapture these folk and drag them back to their plantation owners"? Once that line is crossed, is it still just a guy doing his job? Would fighting him, maybe killing him be overreacting?
What if killing him meant you could get the escapees to a different safe location?
If you just give them up, do you bear any responsibility?
Great caesar's post!
You're right, there is an element of muckiness when the system gets to a certain level of fucked up. While I do think it's wrong to shoot the tractor driver, or for pro-lifers to assassinate doctors who perform abortions, I don't think it's wrong to shoot the nazis who are trying to exterminate your and your neighbors. So what's the difference between those two cases?
Now having the data concerning why, I would pack and move. Even if it was the depression and the houses would be empty and fall down.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 03:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:14:35 PM
Why would you have to shoot someone to feel like you've done something? Why not just get the guy distracted, then bop him on the head and make off with the tractor? That way, you haven't killed anyone, and now you have a tractor to fight back with.
This doesn't really work as well in metaphor form as I had hoped, but anyway.
Then you go to jail for assault and grand theft. Overall in the scenario you will not win. But you have to stand for something or you'll fall for everything.
The OP also places a burden of responsibility on the tractor operator. I agree with this.
Well I DON'T. I have this thing against overreacting against people who are just trying to do their job, see.
Sure, in this instance.. what if instead, the guy was there to carry off the brown people hiding in your attic? Where's the line between "that asshole wants to knock down my building" and "That asshole wants to recapture these folk and drag them back to their plantation owners"? Once that line is crossed, is it still just a guy doing his job? Would fighting him, maybe killing him be overreacting?
What if killing him meant you could get the escapees to a different safe location?
If you just give them up, do you bear any responsibility?
Great caesar's post!
You're right, there is an element of muckiness when the system gets to a certain level of fucked up. While I do think it's wrong to shoot the tractor driver, or for pro-lifers to assassinate doctors who perform abortions, I don't think it's wrong to shoot the nazis who are trying to exterminate your and your neighbors.
Well I went for Abolition instead of Nazis just to escape Godwin ;-)
Quote
So what's the difference between those two cases?
I personally don't have an attachment to stuff like houses so I probably wouldn't risk death/jail over it. In an instance where humans are being harmed, though, I probably would act. Individual choice, based on my ethics, created by the social/memetic entities I've interacted with say "Stuff == not that important... humans==important". Some other person though, maybe raised with different social entities(like Family), might well think that house is pretty damned important ("My great-great-great grandfather built this house and its been part of my family for 200 years...)
Rat, excellent points. I am sure uncounted numbers have died trying to help other people. Many in the Underground Railroad, using your example. And, yes, many in Nazi Germany.
It is a purpose worth dying over indeed.
It the number one thing I like about the so called "Rational Anarchist"* philosophy espoused in the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
Quote"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
Mannie: "Hear, hear!" I said. "'Less than perfect.' What I've been aiming for all my life."
"You've achieved it," said Wyoh. "Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals—surely you would not want . . well, H-missiles for example—to be controlled by one irresponsible person?"
Prof: "My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist—and they do—some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
It does seem that corporations, governments etc use the fictional entity to cover their actions...
"I'm not responsible for waterboarding them rag-heads, I was just followin' orders."
"My legal counsel said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply... I took his advice, I'm not responsible"
"We The Corporation regret that you have lost all of your retirement, However, we are now in bankrupcy and can't help you... excuse me while I go hang out on my yacht."
* I am aware that I may get shat on for using the A word on PD.com ;-)
If you take part in evil, you are evil.
"I'm just doing my job." sounds a whole lot like "I was just following orders."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:39:39 PM
If you take part in evil, you are evil.
"I'm just doing my job." sounds a whole lot like "I was just following orders."
:mittens:
We're actually moving further and further away from the point of the rant to discuss the ins and outs of Steinbeck's example, which, well. It's been a good discuss, so I'm not exactly disappointed, but it isn't what I was driving at.
What I was trying to talk about was people manipulating systems to their own benefit, at the detriment of others, and then hiding behind the fact that they are operating within a bigger system to justify their actions.
The two big examples I used were MPs expenses in the UK (where rules were put in place regarding what was alright to claim, and then roundly ignored, to little long term change and effect), and the banking crisis, which has resulted in an obscene amount of pain for a lot of people, whilst those directly responsible have not suffered at all, instead being free to continue in their cushy, highly paid jobs.
Now. Whether or not you should shoot the driver, that is actually tangential to my point. My point is that he needs to bear responsibility for being the one to drive the tractor through the house. The buck stops with him for enforcing the decisions of the collective groups. It has to be on his conscience, and he needs to be ready to face the consequences of his actions if it is later decided to be immoral and deserving of punishment.
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
What I was trying to talk about was people manipulating systems to their own benefit, at the detriment of others, and then hiding behind the fact that they are operating within a bigger system to justify their actions.
Which was precisely the point of my above post.
Sorry if it wasn't verbose enough.
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Which was precisely the point of my above post.
Sorry if it wasn't verbose enough.
No no, I got that and I agree... I just thought it might be worth restating what I was trying to say in the first place, because I think it might have got muddled up.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
We're actually moving further and further away from the point of the rant to discuss the ins and outs of Steinbeck's example, which, well. It's been a good discuss, so I'm not exactly disappointed, but it isn't what I was driving at.
What I was trying to talk about was people manipulating systems to their own benefit, at the detriment of others, and then hiding behind the fact that they are operating within a bigger system to justify their actions.
The two big examples I used were MPs expenses in the UK (where rules were put in place regarding what was alright to claim, and then roundly ignored, to little long term change and effect), and the banking crisis, which has resulted in an obscene amount of pain for a lot of people, whilst those directly responsible have not suffered at all, instead being free to continue in their cushy, highly paid jobs.
Now. Whether or not you should shoot the driver, that is actually tangential to my point. My point is that he needs to bear responsibility for being the one to drive the tractor through the house. The buck stops with him for enforcing the decisions of the collective groups. It has to be on his conscience, and he needs to be ready to face the consequences of his actions if it is later decided to be immoral and deserving of punishment.
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
I find it ironinc in the US that as the Bankers are slipping behind their limited liability shield, the US Supreme Court is ensuring that they have First Amendment rights...
"You're not responsible for what you do... but you have a right to say whatever the hell you like!!" that seems completely insane to me.
I also agree with your view of "ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor", memetics as a model can help us understand why humans behave as they do, maybe even predict some behaviors... but it doesn't negate the individuals culpability. Arguing that its they System's fault is just a dodge. The MP's knew that what they were doing was shady, the Banks knew that what they were doing was shady (in at least some of the instances)... System or not they should be responsible for what they knew. Even those banks that handed out stupid large sub-prime loans to people that couldn't afford it should be responsible for that decision to their investors and the individual borrower should bear responsibility for getting in over their head (The system let me borrow more money than I could handle!!). Instead, the borrower plays victim when they get kicked out, the bank plays dumb (its my job to give out loans and that person fit within the minimum constraints!) and surprised that the guy who worked at McDonalds couldn't handle a brand new $250,000 home and none of them want to say Mea Culpa.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
Eating meat isn't evil.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
I'm not sure I understand your usage of evil in the context here... eating meat is evil? Using oil is evil?
For me, treating animals cruelly is evil... and I would never do that. However, eating a dead animal is just eating a dead animal. If I know company X treats their animals like shit, I stop buying from them. Thats as far as I am complicit or culpable. Of course, if I choose to take it further, if I choose to act against the person committing evil, thats also an act of personal responsibility. If I get a whole group together to fight the wrongs that is also an act of personal responsibility. If 5 guys in the group go blow up the evil farmer's house, that was their own damned fault. If I had used incendiary speech to rile them up... then that is MY responsibility.
I think for me it boils down to this:
I am always responsible for my decisions and actions.
I may choose to act against a broader Evil, and I am responsible for any actions I take.
However, unless I participate in the evil I am not responsible for the evil act.
The OP isn't even talking about 'evil' as much as irresponsible behavior based on 'the system'. In those cases, I think its clearly individual responsibility at issue.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
Eating meat isn't evil.
Not in itself, no. But giving money to current meat industry giants is arguably fucked.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
Eating meat isn't evil.
Not in itself, no. But giving money to current meat industry giants is arguably fucked.
Why?
I've seen shit. :|
Suggested content: Fast Food Nation, Food Inc.
Oddly, even though the meat horrifies me, I still eat it. I appear to be immune to cognitive dissonance.
Well I guess everybody who can't grow their own just has to go without. Let's put those damn ranchers right the fuck out of business. They deserve it, after all.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 08, 2010, 05:41:45 PM
However, too often I think that people are ready to allow others to get away with their despicable actions simply because it is their job. Steinbeck's bulldozer is just one example of this, but the most blatant of a man trying to pass the buck up to 'society, and you can't shoot society!'
And as I said earlier, I find the entire notion of ceding responsibility up to some nebulous biological metaphor unsuitable for guiding our actions as individuals in the real world.
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
Eating meat isn't evil.
Not in itself, no. But giving money to current meat industry giants is arguably fucked.
I don't see how. That's the only way to produce enough meat. Same goes with corporate/factory farms that produce wheat.
You don't feed cities with Farmer Brown's 100 acres.
ah "evil" probably isn't the right word. you guys know I don't really believe in evil anyway. I'm using it to represent the things that humans demonize.
I was watching this documentary last night about Genetically Modified Organisms, and how traditional farmers are getting the legal squeeze put on them by Monsanto. Monsanto released its patented organisms into the wild, where they reproduced like crazy.. apparently if you have any of this genetic material on your farm, even if you never planted it, Monsanto's gonna take your farm and demand you destroy your "contaminated seed store". From one angle, Monsanto is trying to establish a genetic monopoly by forcing farmers to rely on their products. From another angle, they're just protecting their intellectual property. /tangent
Anyway, let's get back into that steinbeck bulldozer. If you live in America, odds are, you are eating GMOs. (see: corn syrup) Is it your responsibility that all those farmers are having their livelihoods destroyed? Should these farmers be mad at you, specifically, for powering Monsanto?
If you are paying taxes in the united states, about 36% of the taxes you paid in 2009 were spent on the military and its various endeavors. Am I responsible for those guys being tortured at Gitmo? I certainly paid for it.
Or on a more local level, I paid taxes to Westchester county last year, some of which doubtlessly funded the corrupt yonkers police station. The yonkers PD is responsible for numerous acts of brutality and injustice, am I responsible for that? I could have moved and not contributed to that system, so do I bear some of the blame?
Does this version of personal responsibility go the other way? I'm reminded of the Windows 7 commercials where some young socialite looks at the camera and says "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was MY idea." and what they're talking about is that windows 7 was based on the bad feedback they got from Windows Vista. If I participated in that feedback, can I claim to some ownership of Windows 7?
I voted Obama, am I responsible for his health care bill?
I have a low level job at a publishing company. We publish ESL books. Can I claim to have taught millions of immigrants how to speak English?
Responsibility is diffused through the network. That's how large systems survive, they don't rely on any individual agent. BP's CEO steps down, another one steps up. You shoot one bulldozer driver, they'll hire another. If you want to change the system, you're wasting your time fucking with its tiny human agents.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 07:27:33 PM
ah "evil" probably isn't the right word. you guys know I don't really believe in evil anyway. I'm using it to represent the things that humans demonize.
I was watching this documentary last night about Genetically Modified Organisms, and how traditional farmers are getting the legal squeeze put on them by Monsanto. Monsanto released its patented organisms into the wild, where they reproduced like crazy.. apparently if you have any of this genetic material on your farm, even if you never planted it, Monsanto's gonna take your farm and demand you destroy your "contaminated seed store". From one angle, Monsanto is trying to establish a genetic monopoly by forcing farmers to rely on their products. From another angle, they're just protecting their intellectual property. /tangent
Anyway, let's get back into that steinbeck bulldozer. If you live in America, odds are, you are eating GMOs. (see: corn syrup) Is it your responsibility that all those farmers are having their livelihoods destroyed? Should these farmers be mad at you, specifically, for powering Monsanto?
If you are paying taxes in the united states, about 36% of the taxes you paid in 2009 were spent on the military and its various endeavors. Am I responsible for those guys being tortured at Gitmo? I certainly paid for it.
Or on a more local level, I paid taxes to Westchester county last year, some of which doubtlessly funded the corrupt yonkers police station. The yonkers PD is responsible for numerous acts of brutality and injustice, am I responsible for that? I could have moved and not contributed to that system, so do I bear some of the blame?
Does this version of personal responsibility go the other way? I'm reminded of the Windows 7 commercials where some young socialite looks at the camera and says "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was MY idea." and what they're talking about is that windows 7 was based on the bad feedback they got from Windows Vista. If I participated in that feedback, can I claim to some ownership of Windows 7?
I voted Obama, am I responsible for his health care bill?
I have a low level job at a publishing company. We publish ESL books. Can I claim to have taught millions of immigrants how to speak English?
Responsibility is diffused through the network. That's how large systems survive, they don't rely on any individual agent. BP's CEO steps down, another one steps up. You shoot one bulldozer driver, they'll hire another. If you want to change the system, you're wasting your time fucking with its tiny human agents.
I just have one question.
Would you drive the tractor through the house?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 07:27:33 PM
Responsibility is diffused through the network. That's how large systems survive, they don't rely on any individual agent. BP's CEO steps down, another one steps up. You shoot one bulldozer driver, they'll hire another. If you want to change the system, you're wasting your time fucking with its tiny human agents.
I want to amend this and say that sometimes there are humans with higher degrees of importance within a network. These people are perhaps the best channel to affect systemic change because they are able to send signals which will be amplified and reinforced by the system instead of defeated by it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 07:43:43 PM
I just have one question.
Would you drive the tractor through the house?
I don't know, it's a hypothetical. I've never read the Grapes of Wrath, so the specific context is invisible to me.
edit: if MY job and family's wellbeing were at risk for failure to comply, I'd probably bulldoze it. If there's a gun pointed in my face, probably not.
The context was foreclosures on farms during the Great Depression.
Thanks for the honest answer.
In a perfect society, something like the Great Depression would have prompted some kind of organized action to forgive mortgages. Or not, I don't know, I don't understand economics well enough to know if that would do more harm than good. Anyway, the point is that for a society to function, it must have rules. For those rules to be dependable, people must follow them. Whether the rule is a law, a social custom, a matter of business "bulldoze this farm or get fired," doesn't matter.
I don't personally believe that strong-arming somebody who is only following orders, regardless of how dimwitted his actions might be, is going to solve anything beyond the immediate question of whether the farm gets bulldozed in the next 15 minutes. It might put it off for 30 minutes, it might put it off indefinitely, but it will also incur the wrath of a system whose rules must be followed if it is to survive.
So it is more constructive to change the rules where they originate, than to simply force people to break them. Besides the immediate "fine, we'll just send a team of goons and force you to obey" reaction, breaking the system from the bottom up, forcefully, leaves nothing in place to spare whatever the pieces of that system might fall on if it crashes. And even then, a new system will just rise up and be just as self-obsessed as the last one.
For the farmer, there may have been no good answer. He was going to lose his farm, or his freedom, or both. Faced with such a situation, which question is more important: who is ultimately to blame for his predicament, or who is ultimately responsible for his future. His instinct for self-preservation might be at odds with his territorial instincts, but the decision is his: fight (and most assuredly lose) for his farm, or allow the Machine to take the course it is going to take anyway, and rebuild?
Really it isn't a matter of blame and responsibility but a matter of ability to deal with changing circumstances. The guy loved his farm and it was his only means of survival. Without it, maybe he was as good as dead anyway. Or maybe not. But the Bank that came to foreclose was no more under his control than a stray tornado that destroyed his land would be. Compared to the individual, the Machine might as well be a force of Nature.
<that was way longer than i meant it to be...>
Quote from: vexati0n on September 08, 2010, 09:02:28 PM
In a perfect society, something like the Great Depression would have prompted some kind of organized action to forgive mortgages.
Actually, we pay the banks to NOT forgive the mortgages. They evict everyone, keep the prices on the houses artificially high, and then take the bailout money and buy T-bills, so they can collect interest on the loan we gave them.
I don't need perfect. I'd settle for "somewhat sane".
And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.
Vex, a perfect society? Like all the dispossessed homeowners from the recent financial collapse? Oh, they were tossed a bleached bone this time, but little more.
I stated earlier after I researched the root cause that I would have just packed on. There was nothing to fight.
There was no good answer, now we are right back to Squids point.
How to make a good answer.
I think the trouble started way back in the early days, when we first started agriculture, and villages and stuff. One man offered to keep an eye out for another man's shit, while he, er went to mow a meadow?
And the altruism that enabled that to happen, meant we could arrange to temporarily absolve ourselves from our responsibilities, if we could trade off with someone else, for instance, you have to go and visit a village 30 miles away, so you get tour nieghbour to act on your behalf, should any issue arise while you are away. This became a kind of commodity after a while, and then the first commitee was formed, and it just grew from that, into huge Governmental systems. So now, the State absolves us from most of the consequences our actions bring, directly or indirectly.
Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.
Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot? All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.
You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:37:50 PM
Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.
Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot? All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.
You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.
Gawg Bless country folks.
Since you put it like that, It would be churlish of me to not to do so.
So with the responsibility of great Bread, comes the opportunity of great Beer?
So let's get rat arsed! (And while we sleep it off in the morning, the woodturners committee, can keep the mills going for us)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:37:50 PM
Actually, I read a pretty interesting paper about how cooperative farming (which led to cities) was engaged in for the purpose of making beer.
Now, wouldn't THAT be a hoot? All of the comforts of civilization we have are a byproduct of beer.
You owe it to your ancestors to have a pint, I think.
Safer than the water ;-)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.
BINGO
The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage. HOWEVER, just because he is "doing his job" doesn't absolve the bulldozer driver of being an asshole.
And I think that speaks to Cram's earlier rejection... bad shit happens in society, we can't be responsible for all of it. Its not the responsibility of the bulldozer driver to save the farmer's land; however we are responsible for our specific actions like driving the bulldozer, or taking out the mortgage. We can't simply say "Well the memetic entity said it was a great time to buy into the American Dream, so I'm not culpable for taking out a loan that I can't afford." or "Well the memetic entity said I need a job and driving this bulldozer is good money, so its not my fault that I knocked that dudes house down!"
I don't think being responsible always means doing the altrusitic thing. For example, the bulldozer guy may not have liked his job, but he may have 9 kids at home (Damned Catholics!)... as such he may say "I am responsible for my children, thus I will do this ethically dubious thing which I don't enjoy." He is still accepting responsibility, even though he is still going to do the "bad" thing.
If the farmer killed the driver, there may be an understanding of why (The "This IS My Territory" meme is strong) but he would still be responsible for killing the guy... its not the banks fault or the drivers fault.
To bring it back to the OP, the MP's are responsible for their actions if they declared more houses than they should have, they cannot say "Well, it wasn't technically illegal...so I'm not responsible." It may not have been technically illegal, but they ARE responsible because they DID the act and in cases like the recent British MP mess... it appears obvious that most, if not all of them knew that they were gaming the system.
Responsibility cannot be abdicated. We can understand the motivating factors for an act, but the actor will always be responsible for the act... unless they are brainwashed or under a madjickal spell*.
* I put that bit in special for Dok. :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.
BINGO
The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage. HOWEVER, just because he is "doing his job" doesn't absolve the bulldozer driver of being an asshole.
And I think that speaks to Cram's earlier rejection... bad shit happens in society, we can't be responsible for all of it. Its not the responsibility of the bulldozer driver to save the farmer's land; however we are responsible for our specific actions like driving the bulldozer, or taking out the mortgage. We can't simply say "Well the memetic entity said it was a great time to buy into the American Dream, so I'm not culpable for taking out a loan that I can't afford." or "Well the memetic entity said I need a job and driving this bulldozer is good money, so its not my fault that I knocked that dudes house down!"
I don't think being responsible always means doing the altrusitic thing. For example, the bulldozer guy may not have liked his job, but he may have 9 kids at home (Damned Catholics!)... as such he may say "I am responsible for my children, thus I will do this ethically dubious thing which I don't enjoy." He is still accepting responsibility, even though he is still going to do the "bad" thing.
If the farmer killed the driver, there may be an understanding of why (The "This IS My Territory" meme is strong) but he would still be responsible for killing the guy... its not the banks fault or the drivers fault.
To bring it back to the OP, the MP's are responsible for their actions if they declared more houses than they should have, they cannot say "Well, it wasn't technically illegal...so I'm not responsible." It may not have been technically illegal, but they ARE responsible because they DID the act and in cases like the recent British MP mess... it appears obvious that most, if not all of them knew that they were gaming the system.
Responsibility cannot be abdicated. We can understand the motivating factors for an act, but the actor will always be responsible for the act... unless they are brainwashed or under a madjickal spell*.
* I put that bit in special for Dok. :wink:
In a way everyone is brainwashed. Our actions are, as Cram said, a function of internal forces; and those forces are a function of external stimuli. There's a way to shift blame away from anybody in any situation. The tractor driver could choose to sacrifice his own lifeline to safe the farmer's lifeline (an act that would prove meaningless as soon as the bank found a more cooperative driver). The farmer could choose to commit an act of violence to defend his lifeline (an act that would also prove meaningless as soon as he was arrested or otherwise "dealt with.")
This whole argument is nothing new at all. It's the "pass the buck" game; and very few people are willing to say, "The buck stops here." There are a thousand directions that blame can go, one for every person's perspective. The tractor driver is either going to be responsible for tearing down the farmhouse, or for failing to do his job. The farmer is either going to be responsible for failing to pay his mortgage, or for committing murder. The bank is either responsible for cold-heartedly depriving a man of his home and his livelihood, or for becoming a casualty of the economic times and ruining a few investors.
Who is to "blame" for anything that happens ultimately comes down to power and the force to move a given situation along. The way those things generally work out is along the path of least resistance -- i.e., whoever causes the smallest splash is getting tossed in the lake, and there's nothing you can do about it. In this case that could be either the farmer or the tractor driver, or both. The bank doesn't care, it'll roll over the top of anyone it has to - not because it is evil but because that's the direction it's going and it's bigger than they are.
As an individual, like an ant facing an impending death under the heel of gigantic boot, your job is to get out of the way.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.
BINGO
The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage.
But he didn't crash the market through stupid, short-sighted market manipulation. The banks and steel companies did that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
* I put that bit in special for Dok. :wink:
Why the fuck do you do that shit?
I'm out of this conversation. Later.
I don't buy the idea that being part of a system absolves you of any responsibility.
Here's the hypotheticals:
Alice is an employee at a computer service center. As part of their procedure, on all jobs they run a virus scan. If the scan flags a program as a potential virus, she is to inform the customer that a virus has been found on his computer, and offer to remove it for $120. She isn't allowed to tell the customer that their scanning software has a very high false positive rate, or that she is 99.9% confident that this particular program isn't a virus. She's supposed to scare the customer into spending $120 on a "service" that will actually inconvenience them when their video drivers no longer work properly or something.
Bob is a door-to-door computer "repairman." He goes to people's houses (he especially goes after elderly clients) and offers them to give their computers a check-up, free of charge. If they accept, he runs a virus scan that somehow never fails to find a virus (even if there is no virus to be found!) and offers to remove the "virus" for $120.
I think it's pretty clear that Bob is running a scam. Alice is merely implementing a scam that someone else came up with - but both of them are deceiving other people for a living. The only difference is our society allows Alice to say it isn't her fault, because she'd be out of work if she refused or reported her company to law enforcement or whatever. Bob would also be out of work (and unable to feed his family, etc etc) if he stopped scamming or reported himself, but we don't consider his blatantly criminal activity to be a "job" ... despite the fact that he does essentially the same thing for a living as Alice, just with less regular wages.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 08, 2010, 06:10:28 PM
By participating in society, all of us are complicit in numerous evil things. Eating meat, using oil, trading stocks, paying taxes.. all of these contain a certain amount of societal detriment, a certain amount of evil. If we resolved to stop doing any kind of evil, we'd be paralyzed with inaction. (or I guess we could go become fruitarians and live on an off-grid commune, but if that's the only way to not do evil, I'd rather do a little evil) I find this idea of radical individual responsibility inadequate to guide actions in the real world too. Because it makes the cashier at stop and shop responsible for GMO contamination, and it puts the guy working at my local bank branch on the same level as Tim Geitner.
I find this to be a major barrier in my attempts to create a consistent morality for myself, because I really do believe in radical personal responsibility and at the same time know I'll never live up to its standards.
Because on one hand, allowing evil to happen through inaction is equivalent to directly "causing" it. (I should note that I have no idea what the word "cause" means anymore, after reading Hume). On the other hand,
anything I do allows many evils, great and small, to continue. No matter what I do, there is always some evil going around that I could have prevented (albeit perhaps by allowing a different evil). The utilitarians would have that I should find the course of action that permits the minimum of evil, and then not worry about the others because I did my best. But I'm pretty sure that the "minimal evil / maximal good" route involves me abandoning my friends, family, and education to go the the exact place where I can get the improve humanity the most - which is probably where humanity is the worst, and somewhere hot with lots of disease and little internet access. Since I am not doing any of that, I know that I am in some small way responsible for tons of things that are wrong in the world.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
* I put that bit in special for Dok. :wink:
Why the fuck do you do that shit?
I'm out of this conversation. Later.
Because I meant it in jest :? I thought that it was obvious that my last sentence was a joke. I thought you would find it funny...sorry.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:00:24 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
* I put that bit in special for Dok. :wink:
Why the fuck do you do that shit?
I'm out of this conversation. Later.
Because I meant it in jest :? I thought that it was obvious that my last sentence was a joke. I thought you would find it funny...sorry.
Apologies. I take the wink emote as condescension.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 10:32:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
And in that scenario, there's no excuse for driving the bulldozer.
BINGO
The farmer was screwed by the system, no doubt. However, it was his responsibility, he took out the mortgage.
But he didn't crash the market through stupid, short-sighted market manipulation. The banks and steel companies did that.
That doesn't matter. If the Farmer says "Please give me monies, if I don't pay you back you can bulldoze my house" then he IS responsible for either paying the debt or letting someone hit his house with a bulldozer.
Responsibility isn't necessarily a bad or negative thing. It just is. If you act you are responsible for the act, even if something you accounted for (the US economy and people buying your crop) falls apart, it doesn't abdicate you of responsibility.
The bankers etc may well be responsible for fucking the economy and the farmer's ability to pay for his house... so they are responsible for their actions.
And at the end of the day the bulldozer driver is responsible for physically knocking down the house. Even if he is otherwise an awesome dude.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:10:12 AM
That doesn't matter. If the Farmer says "Please give me monies, if I don't pay you back you can bulldoze my house" then he IS responsible for either paying the debt or letting someone hit his house with a bulldozer.
Sure it matters. If I loan you money, and then take deliberate or negligent steps that ensure you can't pay it, then the responsibility is on me...IE, the money may still be owed, but only after the actions I took have been rectified.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 12:12:54 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:10:12 AM
That doesn't matter. If the Farmer says "Please give me monies, if I don't pay you back you can bulldoze my house" then he IS responsible for either paying the debt or letting someone hit his house with a bulldozer.
Sure it matters. If I loan you money, and then take deliberate or negligent steps that ensure you can't pay it, then the responsibility is on me...IE, the money may still be owed, but only after the actions I took have been rectified.
I find that I gotta agree with that... as long as the bank/mortgage company is actually responsible for the calamity in some sense.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:51:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 12:12:54 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:10:12 AM
That doesn't matter. If the Farmer says "Please give me monies, if I don't pay you back you can bulldoze my house" then he IS responsible for either paying the debt or letting someone hit his house with a bulldozer.
Sure it matters. If I loan you money, and then take deliberate or negligent steps that ensure you can't pay it, then the responsibility is on me...IE, the money may still be owed, but only after the actions I took have been rectified.
I find that I gotta agree with that... as long as the bank/mortgage company is actually responsible for the calamity in some sense.
They were...They weren't the ONLY culprit, but they were the prime mover.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 12:09:09 AM
Apologies. I take the wink emote as condescension.
Well, hell... no wonder we often end up pissed at each other... I generally take it to be j/k. I will try to be more careful with its usage!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 12:52:33 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:51:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 12:12:54 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 12:10:12 AM
That doesn't matter. If the Farmer says "Please give me monies, if I don't pay you back you can bulldoze my house" then he IS responsible for either paying the debt or letting someone hit his house with a bulldozer.
Sure it matters. If I loan you money, and then take deliberate or negligent steps that ensure you can't pay it, then the responsibility is on me...IE, the money may still be owed, but only after the actions I took have been rectified.
I find that I gotta agree with that... as long as the bank/mortgage company is actually responsible for the calamity in some sense.
They were...They weren't the ONLY culprit, but they were the prime mover.
So that brings us to a question of ethics. Two different questions:
Who is responsible for the farmers house payment?
How should an ethical bank behave in the situation?
I maintain that the farmer is still ultimately responsible for whatever contract he signed (the poor bastard is screwed either way), but that an ethical bank would consider it their responsibility to fix their fuckup before aiming at their customers. Though an ethical bank is likely an oxymoron. :x
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 04:47:39 PM
So that brings us to a question of ethics. Two different questions:
Who is responsible for the farmers house payment?
How should an ethical bank behave in the situation?
I maintain that the farmer is still ultimately responsible for whatever contract he signed (the poor bastard is screwed either way), but that an ethical bank would consider it their responsibility to fix their fuckup before aiming at their customers. Though an ethical bank is likely an oxymoron. :x
I also maintain that the farmer is ultimately responsible. However, if banks create an environment where payment simply isn't possible, then foreclosure should be stayed until such time as payment is possible.
It's the only way to make the bankers think farther ahead than their next 6 martini lunch.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on September 08, 2010, 11:43:28 PM
I find this to be a major barrier in my attempts to create a consistent morality for myself, because I really do believe in radical personal responsibility and at the same time know I'll never live up to its standards.
Hobbes said something about that.
Impossible standard is impossible. That's why the Angel of Apathy™ exists, to come along and whack you in the head when a foolish consistency gets all wedged in your brain.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 09, 2010, 04:53:50 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 09, 2010, 04:47:39 PM
So that brings us to a question of ethics. Two different questions:
Who is responsible for the farmers house payment?
How should an ethical bank behave in the situation?
I maintain that the farmer is still ultimately responsible for whatever contract he signed (the poor bastard is screwed either way), but that an ethical bank would consider it their responsibility to fix their fuckup before aiming at their customers. Though an ethical bank is likely an oxymoron. :x
I also maintain that the farmer is ultimately responsible. However, if banks create an environment where payment simply isn't possible, then foreclosure should be stayed until such time as payment is possible.
It's the only way to make the bankers think farther ahead than their next 6 martini lunch.
:mittens:
Damn, we're in lock step on this!
can I just say that I really enjoyed this thread? Not just because I ran my mouth off, but because it's a good discussion, and it was engaging without being emotional.
:mittens: to everybody
Right back at you! It was a good discussion, and I really enjoyed seeing how it developed.
:mittens: for all! :D