Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Look, if you have a purely individualistic view of responsibility, then of course no one can ever be responsible for anything anyone else ever does.
But if you look at things like "a car manufacturer saving time or money and creating a flaw on accident getting someone killed", or "you cook someone a free meal, but don't wash your hands and get they die of food poisoning as a result, you're somewhat responsible" ... then maybe people can be responsible in a small way for other people, even when they're not putting a gun to their head and forcing them to do something.
If the least healthy among us dies while trying to achieve a goal that we've all (as a community) falsely made out to be attainable when it's not, that's somewhat (I'm not saying 100%, or even 50%, but maybe 1% or 0.1%) on us as a community.
|
I disagree wholeheartedly.
If we’re even 1% responsible, that would imply that we would have had even the smallest chance to change the outcome. So how exactly can we change the outcome?
It’s obviously attainable; people having them is proof. Suggesting the onus is on us if he hurts himself trying to obtain one disregards OP’s freedom of choice. If we in any way infringed on that freedom of choice, then we would be partially responsible. But OP is an adult with the liberty to make his own choices, and as long as his choices don’t negatively impact someone else, then he’s free and clear to make them as he will. In your examples, those people’s actions affected or directly influenced the outcome, or had the opportunity to influence the outcome. We have no ability to realistically influence anything here.
“Most people don’t want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility” - Sigmund Freud