I cannot accept excuses such as 'i'm so sorry i was drunk when i did it!', as we have to be responsible for the chain of events that lead to an act. If we know, for example, that we are more likely to be tempted to commit the act of infidelity when intoxicated, and we understand that by drinking too much alcohol we will become intoxicated, then we have to be responsible for the repurcussions that follow this chain of events. Every action leads to a response, even if that response is nothing, it is simply a neutral response to an action, and we still must accept responsibility for this neutral response, just as we should for a positive response. I believe that this quite simple theory can be applied universally, sort of following the way paved for us by Kant's categorical imperative.
There was a link here but i removed it until i can find something more suitably inoffensive, sorry for any harm caused.
******Equally, I have recently been informed that i have infringed someone's copyright by posting a picture that they apparently own the copyright to on here, and that seems inconvenient seen as i am required to post an image and a link on each post, so here is a blank picture from a network that truly can sue me to fulfill those requirents:
Finally, i am obligated to post a link somewhere on this post, and again in order to avoid litigation i have posted my apology to the offended party via my myspace page.
www.myspace.com/ojk_killed_jfk
Peace out, i hope to raise no more copyright issues with this assignment in the future.
4 comments:
ha that blogger- 't' is a bit messed up, so the women are in the wrong for behaving like children, people do behave like children when they are hurt. when you lose someone you curl into a ball and cry. this man has hurt these women, i hink childish behaviour can be excused. he wants to ride into the distance for some peace- he created the caos, he should stay and deal with it!
Hi Oli,
I was amused and slightly flattered to see that the author of a blog that purports to be about real philosophy had linked to my blog today. I don’t mind being called crazy either although I don’t quite understand why you formed that view.
One possible reason is that, despite its title, I don’t actually regard my own blog as being about “philosophy”. I think it is more about relationships and emotion which probably make it “psychology” more than anything else.
Psychology, unlike Philosophy, is concerned with how human beings actually behave rather than how they ought to behave.
The particular post you linked to was certainly not intended to present a serious argument that somehow the “victims” of infidelity should take all responsibility for being victims or that the perpetrator should somehow be absolved of responsibility. That is to miss the point. The post in question was intended as an honest exercise in connecting with and thereby understanding negative emotions (including resentment, anger and frustration) felt by someone involved in infidelity. It was also intended to be entertainment.
I must say I was surprised and intrigued to learn that there are educational courses which include lectures on the topic of infidelity from a philosophical viewpoint. I imagine that the emphasis must be on morality, a topic which I would agree is more naturally the subject of philosophy than psychology.
Looking at things from a philosophical viewpoint and picking up on this post of yours, I would throw a few thoughts into the mix.
It seems to me that your view is a little black and white. You appear to be suggesting that an individual who knows they are susceptible to temptation when drunk should therefore take responsibility for their actions when drunk. Well, it is hard to argue against that so I more or less agree with you.
However, how far do you take this? For example, any driver knows that they are more likely to run over and kill a pedestrian if they drive their car to work than if they ride their bicycle.
Does a person who chooses to drive their car (entirely according to the rules of the road) and who accidentally runs down a drunken pedestrian who falls into their path carry responsibility for the drunkard’s death because they could have chosen ride a comparatively harmless bicycle?
My point here is about causality. In many subject areas there is no such thing. You can rarely say with certainty that one action will lead to a certain outcome. You might say that some actions have a high likelihood of a certain outcome and others a lower one. But where do you draw the line? When is the chain of human responsibility diminished or broken?
My own test on whether a behaviour that has an undesirable and apparently accidental outcome ought to be considered immoral is based upon the following tests:
(1) Was the behaviour motivated by malicious intent?
(2) Did the behaviour amount to “gross negligence”?
If either of these is true then I would argue that the action was immoral. Obviously, it is (2) that is the cop out. Its purpose is to acknowledge that there is a line that, if stepped over, amounts to “gross negligence” without actually defining where that line is.
Defining that line with a rule is usually impossible. Situations are too complex. You will not find a universal rule in many circumstances, particularly in the area of human relationships. This is where human judgement comes in.
And human error of course.
Yours all “messed up” and “quite crazy”,
T
P.S. I would be interested to know whether or not you have ever applied your philosophical views on morality to the topic of copyright infringement? That’s my banner you know!
Hi Oliver,
It's good to see that students are still working late into the night these days!
My turn to apologise. I may have given the wrong impression. I was not offended by your post at all. There is plenty of lively banter in and around my blog and I wouldn't be there if I couldn't take much worse than what you said.
The reality is that I was genuinely pleased that you linked to me. Hence boasting about it in a humorous way on my own blog.
I was also quite thrilled, because I quite enjoy a bit of philosophy myself in addition to my very amateur psychology. When I get a few moments (sadly, I have a job to go to) I intend to read up on "Kant's Categorical Imperative" and "Hume's philosophy" whereupon I may return to your pages for a friendly debate!
Please feel free to link to my blog anytime. I am disappointed that you removed the link. My jibe about copyright was just poking fun. I hereby grant you a licence (free of charge) to use my banner and to quote from my blog.
Good luck with your studies.
T
Post a Comment