Personal Responsibility

Re: Personal Responsibility

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

If you don't believe this is true, why?

These questions arose out of a discussion in a health care thread, where Okie opined that Individual responsibility is the result of Individual freedom, and therefore we shouldn't do anything to help people take care of themselves; it is their individual responsibility to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycl - aren't you confusing legality and morality? Distinct concepts; recently came across this book which covers that very distinction:

Quote:

This collection of contemporary essays by a group of well-known philosophers and legal theorists covers various topics in the philosophy of law, focusing on issues concerning liability in contract, tort, and criminal law. The book is divided into four sections. The first provides a conceptual overview of the issues at stake in a philosophical discussion of liability and responsibility. The second, third, and fourth sections present, in turn, more detailed explorations of the roles of notions of liability and responsibility in contracts, torts, and punishment. The collection not only presents some of the most challenging work being done in legal philosophy today, it also demonstrates the interdisciplinary character of the field of philosophy of law, with contributors taking into account recent developments in economics, political science, and rational choice theory. This thought-provoking volume will help to shed light on the underexplored ground that lies between law and morals.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521392160

0 Replies

Re: Personal Responsibility

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

If you don't believe this is true, why?

These questions arose out of a discussion in a health care thread, where Okie opined that Individual responsibility is the result of Individual freedom, and therefore we shouldn't do anything to help people take care of themselves; it is their individual responsibility to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycl - aren't you confusing legality and morality? Distinct concepts; recently came across this book which covers that very distinction:

Quote:
This collection of contemporary essays by a group of well-known philosophers and legal theorists covers various topics in the philosophy of law, focusing on issues concerning liability in contract, tort, and criminal law. The book is divided into four sections. The first provides a conceptual overview of the issues at stake in a philosophical discussion of liability and responsibility. The second, third, and fourth sections present, in turn, more detailed explorations of the roles of notions of liability and responsibility in contracts, torts, and punishment. The collection not only presents some of the most challenging work being done in legal philosophy today, it also demonstrates the interdisciplinary character of the field of philosophy of law, with contributors taking into account recent developments in economics, political science, and rational choice theory. This thought-provoking volume will help to shed light on the underexplored ground that lies between law and morals.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521392160

Thanks, but I'm discussing morality, not legality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do police officers bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of enforcing the law?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Do police officers bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of enforcing the law?

I believe they do, yes.

In order to move the conversation along, I firmly and affirmatively state that actions stand on their own morality, independent of other concerns, and those who undertake those actions - despite other factors - are responsible for the results, whether they be elected officials, heads of corporations, cops, or regular citizens.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Hold it, Cycl, the government does enjoy immunity not available to the private sector in several instances.

0 Replies

I would certainly find it unacceptable for a police officer not to shoot a criminal that pulled a gun on them because they had a moral objection to violence.

I also find it objectionable for our leaders not to do what is necessary to protect our nation.

Morality has little place in making and upholding laws as morality is subjective. I would dare say that what you consider moral is far different then what I would consider moral beyond the major things like murder, rape etc.

0 Replies

I'll respond to both comments.

High Seas wrote:

Hold it, Cycl, the government does enjoy immunity not available to the private sector in several instances.

Sure, LEGAL immunity. I'm not talking about prosecuting a president who is sitting in office. I'm talking about the MORAL responsibility; taking responsibility for one's actions, ie., the Buck Stops Here.

McG:

Quote:

I would certainly find it unacceptable for a police officer not to shoot a criminal that pulled a gun on them because they had a moral objection to violence.

I also find it objectionable for our leaders not to do what is necessary to protect our nation.

Morality has little place in making and upholding laws as morality is subjective. I would dare say that what you consider moral is far different then what I would consider moral beyond the major things like murder, rape etc.

We aren't discussing individual differences in moral codes; that's a different topic and forum.

What we are discussing is Personal Responsibility, i.e., do those who are in an elected or appointed office carry the same level of personal responsibility for their actions as regular citizens?

To go with your example, is a police officer who decides not to use deadly force responsible for his decision, or protected by his office? Is the police officer who DOES decide to, responsible in the way a regular citizen would be?

To restate: Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

To expand: or, do you believe that they enjoy a special status of protection due to their governmental employment?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

do you believe that they enjoy a special status of protection due to their governmental employment?

Yes, they do. Unfortunate in some cases, fortunate in others.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

do you believe that they enjoy a special status of protection due to their governmental employment?

Yes, they do. Unfortunate in some cases, fortunate in others.

Are you discussing a special moral status, or a legal one? It's an important distinction.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Personal Responsibility

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

Yes.

0 Replies

I think that people who work in the public service are personally responsible for their actions or inactions--and as for the subject of police officers, they often suffer badly over the issue of deadly force, both the use of it, and the failure to use it, and it seems to me that they often hold themselves responsible for their own actions or inactions. I am speaking about one's own personal ethical compass, and not simply legality (legally, public servants are often immune). I am not comfortable with the use of the term morality, which implies an independent objective standard, which i don't believe exists.

There is a term for people who do not ever act responsibly in society, and that is sociopath. I do feel that there are occasionally people such as police officers who are sociopathic, but i suspect that is rare. I found it ridiculous that one member suggested that a police officer would not use deadly force because of a moral objection to violence. It is a little absurd to suggest that someone with a personal, moral objection to violence would become a police officer.

I think it is more likely that a politician would be sociopathic, based on the dictum that power corrupts. They might not be purely sociopathic, in that they may indulge in the self-delusion that the corruption of power were justified by their exalted position. But i do feel that it is implicit in a social contract that public servants are personally responsible for the consequences of their actions, but that in the United States, politicians usually get a pass. If you were the chief financial officer of a corporation which went bust, and it were revealed that you had been unwittingly "cooking the books" because you were fed false data, you'd have no defense, because the law assumes that you are responsible for assuring that you are using reliable data, and you'd be held legally responsible for the consequences of your actions (in the United States). I bring this up specifically because there was a recent case in Canada in which the chief geologists who made tens of millions of dollars selling stock in what proved to be a worthless gold mining operation was acquitted of all responsibility by simply saying that he had been hoodwinked like everyone else--and the law in Canada does not hold him responsible, nor is there any criminal investigation. Personally, i think he is lying, otherwise why did he sell off $76,000,000 CAN in stock just before the company went bust? And, i think he is personally responsible, even if he did get off because of the nature of the law in Canada (in the United States, if the SEC went after him, he'd be looking at a long prison term and multi-million dollar fines).

So, yes, i think politicians are responsible, although i suspect that not all of them, and perhaps even few of them, consider themselves personally responsible.

0 Replies

Re: Personal Responsibility

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

If you don't believe this is true, why?

These questions arose out of a discussion in a health care thread, where Okie opined that Individual responsibility is the result of Individual freedom, and therefore we shouldn't do anything to help people take care of themselves; it is their individual responsibility to do so.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not sure where you are going with this question.

Everyone bears some level of responsibilty for his or her actions, and politicians are no exception.

A discussion of this subject requires, however, context. For the politican there is legal accountability (answering to the State), politcal accountability (answering to fellow wielders of political power and to voters), and what you are suggesting is "moral accountability (answering to God or one's concious).

Within a legal and political context your question can have some traction, but with a context of morality? The first two incorporate consequences that can be defined, measured, and observed, the third does not.

It seems that okie was addressing a particularly cogent point. If the government manifesting itself as an overly broad and finely woven safety-net shield citizens from the consequences of failed personal responsibility, it does society an injustice.

Some would argue it does an injustice to the individual citizens but that conclusion is essentially subjective. If the irresponsible citizen never has to materially suffer for his lack or responsibility then the overreaching government has not done the citizen material harm. That the citizen may, through government intervention, have been transformed into a self-loathing leech depends upon subjective notions of principle and character.

Not so with our ability to define the impact of the Welfare-state on society. Society does not materially benefit when irresponsible citizens are shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible actions. In fact, society materially suffers.

So, unless you can define the consequences of irresponsibilty, the question skids on ice.

0 Replies

To answer your question, Yes, politicians, particularly, bear a personal and individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance.

Why?

Because they are elected as representatives to to act on our individual and collective behalf, to speak for us. Sometimes 'party politics' does not answer the needs of the majority, so it behooves elected officials to vote the way their constituents wish. If they are elected, I feel they certainly have this moral obligation.

0 Replies

Sure, cyclo, leave me hanging... abandon me... this doesn't augur well for SF!

0 Replies

Haha, too many beers deep - I'll answer ya tomorrow.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, you've redeemed yourself! That DOES augur well for SF Smile

0 Replies

Many of us who strongly advocate the importance of personal responsibility have learned that we can vote ourselves freebies through our representatives and Senators , paid for by others. And we reward our Representatives for bringing home the bacon.

0 Replies

Re: Personal Responsibility

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

If you don't believe this is true, why?

These questions arose out of a discussion in a health care thread, where Okie opined that Individual responsibility is the result of Individual freedom, and therefore we shouldn't do anything to help people take care of themselves; it is their individual responsibility to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Yes and no.
A public servant swears to uphold the law and the constitution, does he not? Therefore what he does in that regard in conjunction with his official duties that is a matter of judgement or policy to accomplish the above, is not a personal thing. If in the course of him or her performing his duties, he commits a crime unrelated to his duties or because of his duties, he obviously bears personal responsibility. Example, William Jefferson taking bribes is a crime whether he does it as a congressman or a private citizen.

Conversely, a person has no right to institute his personal moral beliefs if it contradicts the law. Laws are enacted to take care of personal and moral responsibilities, and if a person cannot abide by those laws, then he should not take a job in the public sector to uphold those laws.

I am still fuzzy on exactly what you are driving at here, cyclops. I think we need examples.

Also to clarify what I said in your quote, I believe in helping people, but perhaps it is best done in the private sector instead of making other people pay taxes to help people do things that they should be responsible for themselves, which is according to the constitution. Karl Marx was good at pushing the idea that it is everyones moral responsibility to help everybody else, and how successful and moral was that, cyclops?

0 Replies

Re: Personal Responsibility

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you feel that politicians bear a personal, individual responsibility for the actions they take under the course of governance?

Within limits, yes, they should bear personal (moral) responsibility for their actions.

On some items they are limited by law as far as what they can or can't do but if it within their scope of authority and they make a decision then they bear responsibility for that decision (IMO).

0 Replies

Personal Responsibility

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know