Bob5
 
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2012 10:41 pm
What is wrong in publicly shaming those who have placed their own interests above the rights and welfare of others?

Why should anyone be above question or accountability?

Why shouldn't everyone be held equally responsible for their own actions?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,703 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 09:14 am
@Bob5,
If one organ or sub-system becomes erratic and causes problems for the rest of the body, the body unremarkably seeks remedy for it. The human tendency to be tribal engenders concepts like society; and once the idea becomes an ingrained principle in the individual, and individuals become addicted or benefit by conforming to it and instantiating such as a distributed entity, then society likewise reacts to preserve itself and persist. This ironically means a single member being governed and judged by a human invention, the very thing it contributes to the emergence of, as a component. Just as a somatic cell finds itself at the mercy of however wise or stupid the collective body it belongs to is -- both in terms of the genetic plan that the latter comes equipped with (either healthy or flawed) and experiential, learning development.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 09:46 am
@G H,
G H wrote:

If one organ or sub-system becomes erratic and causes problems for the rest of the body, the body unremarkably seeks remedy for it. The human tendency to be tribal engenders concepts like society; and once the idea becomes an ingrained principle in the individual, and individuals become addicted or benefit by conforming to it and instantiating such as a distributed entity, then society likewise reacts to preserve itself and persist. This ironically means a single member being governed and judged by a human invention, the very thing it contributes to the emergence of, as a component. Just as a somatic cell finds itself at the mercy of however wise or stupid the collective body it belongs to is -- both in terms of the genetic plan that the latter comes equipped with (either healthy or flawed) and experiential, learning development.
I do not think you get it at all... Try again.
Bob5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 11:18 am
@Fido,
I think GH has presented a viable argument here but perhaps I should expound a bit on my original questions. Within any group "natural leaders" will emerge based on the needs of the group and the talents and agenda of the "leader". If this leader is accepted by the group, does this mean the leader should be allowed free rein in his/her activities without being responsible to the group as a whole? I think not but power tends to protect itself, often through fear or intimidation. What can the group do to protect itself from abuse of power? What sorts of remedies should be acceptable? As the group grows so does the degree of dissent and disagreement. How can this be directed in such a was as to minimize strife and, again, what sorts of remedies should be acceptable?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 02:06 am
@Bob5,
I suggest you need to scrutinize what is meant by the word "own" with respect to the terms "interests" and "rights", since all three involve aspects of social acquisition. For example, were Churchill's actions in suppressing British strikers in the early 20th. century in the "interests" of his own political career, or those of "his country" ?
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:40 am
@Fido,
Quote:
I do not think you get it at all... Try again.

That's the extent of my interest in the topic. If you are somehow deluded that my apathy is obstructing you from getting on your soapbox here and offering a specific formulation -- purported to be yet another sole option or the only critique for chastising established systems, and goodness knows even established eons prior to a human conceiving and formally describing it(!) -- then I suggest you seek help. Otherwise you may eventually deteriorate into the very kind of individual who'll find himself either shamed in public someday or have his pimple-spotted ass stuffed into a jail cell by my nephew.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:48 am
@G H,
You can ignore Fido, you will find reasonable people to speak with here. Just don´t respond to people... on the other hand, maybe by responding we can shame Fido into being a better member of this community.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 05:49 pm
@Bob5,
Bob5 wrote:

I think GH has presented a viable argument here but perhaps I should expound a bit on my original questions. Within any group "natural leaders" will emerge based on the needs of the group and the talents and agenda of the "leader". If this leader is accepted by the group, does this mean the leader should be allowed free rein in his/her activities without being responsible to the group as a whole? I think not but power tends to protect itself, often through fear or intimidation. What can the group do to protect itself from abuse of power? What sorts of remedies should be acceptable? As the group grows so does the degree of dissent and disagreement. How can this be directed in such a was as to minimize strife and, again, what sorts of remedies should be acceptable?
Comparing the body politic to a human body is like comparing the human body to a body of water... There is no analogy... Government grew out of the relationship between adults and children, with the adults all doing as they thought right together, that is: Democratically... Representative government as we have it grew out of the later stages of Gentile Society, when petty raids became commonplace, and wealth among the surviving societies began to grow...Democracy is a defensive form of social organization, and it helped to protect the people as much from foreign enemies as domestic enemies... All we need is democracy, and more of it to have our defense...Sure, it is difficult... Many people fear democracy because it requires responsibility, and they will suffer any injury so long as they do not have to accept responsibility for their own condition...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 05:50 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You can ignore Fido, you will find reasonable people to speak with here. Just don´t respond to people... on the other hand, maybe by responding we can shame Fido into being a better member of this community.

Try not to be an idiot or an asshole and you will find it a full time job..
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2012 05:46 am
@Bob5,
If your looking for an alternative in how to manage corruption then I have no serious scholarly advice. However, your point about shaming those who do wrong could go along way if every "leader" were to have their own reality TV show. That would keep anyone on their toes. Wink
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 11:08 am
@Procrustes,
Procrustes wrote:

If your looking for an alternative in how to manage corruption then I have no serious scholarly advice. However, your point about shaming those who do wrong could go along way if every "leader" were to have their own reality TV show. That would keep anyone on their toes. Wink
If there is no honor there is no shame; and people have decided there is no place for honor in government, or business... Should there be some surprise in the fact that there is very little honor in any of our relationships???When we look at how easily primitives people would die or kill for their honor, and that even today people will kill and die for honor; and then see that any little stinker can pledge an oath of fidelity to wife or husband they have no intention of keeping, and that they know no one will enforce, or that justices and politicians will make oaths and take oaths and break oaths with equanimity, and equate faith and honor to faith and honor to ones class, or party but never hold anyone to anything lest they be held to the same accounting then we can only conclude the term is meaningless...The greater the guilt; the less the shame!!!

Honor is not a meaningless term, but you cannot have the dishonorable judge the dishonorable or nothing will improve... Honor is an element of every successful relationship, and it is missing from every failed relationship... Those judges who say they do not decide justice, but only decide the law, or constitutionality have put themselves outside of every human relationship, though not above...No relationship and no society can exist for long without honor and justice being first in consideration...
0 Replies
 
krc950
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2012 08:05 pm
@Bob5,
i'll ATTEMPT to answer

1) That might depend on who your'e asking, some might see it as wrong, others might see it as right, there are a lot of factors that would go into determining how one would view it.. upbringing/environment/personality/ religion/ ... possibly even some underlying biological contributor to an individuals behavior/demeanor...

2) If the society functioned in accordance with the moral beliefs that no one should be above question or accountability, then no one "SHOULD" be above those things... in that particular society at least, but us being creatures of supposed free will.. whatever that means... tend to sometimes not do things we SHOULD simply because we CAN

3) In an" ideal" world based on my world view, everyone would be held equally responsible for their own actions,,, not to say that there are others out there who would completely disagree based upon their own subjective views of reality...

I cant argue against your points, because as an American citizen I was also raised with similar ideals .. but I also cant validate them,at least in my own mind, because I just don't know.. i guess we're all trying to figure these things out.... or maybe some of us at least....

0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Apr, 2012 10:59 pm
@Bob5,
Quote:
What is wrong in publicly shaming those who have placed their own interests above the rights and welfare of others?

What is wrong with putting your own interests above the rights and welfare of others?

Do you ship 9/10 of your food to starving nations?
Do you share your house with the homeless?
Do you give other people behind you your spot in a queue?
If you and one other person have the same foot injury, and you are seated and he is standing - do you give him your seat?

Seriously, the number of examples of 'selfish' behaviour that people find acceptable is virtually endless, but so many spout hypocritical morals about other people being more important than us.

The truth of the matter has always been found in balance.

Quote:
Why shouldn't everyone be held equally responsible for their own actions?
If everyone is equally responsible for their own actions - why do you need to 'put the rights and interests of others' above your own? Wouldn't they take responsibility for achieving their own rights & interests?

Let me set this straight - we are all responsible for our actions. There are contributing circumstances, and there is responsibility. In finding causal factors, both contributing circumstances and responsibility combined has to be considered. And every action has a consequence (whether internally, externally, or both)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Behavior
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 05:59:10