Straight Dope Message Board

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Scylla

What does fault have to do with it? You are in the exact same dire situation either way. Your example above makes a big deal about saying the person is blameless. Does his blame change the scenario?

Because in his situation is at least partially a function of his choices, right?

I think blame or culpability is the primary criteria in determining whether one is personally responsible for something. "Is it my fault?"

Originally, I would have answered either "Yes it is my fault, therefore it is my responsibility" or "no, it is not my fault, therefore it is not my responsibility". You convinced me to drop the "no" answer. So now, according to my idea of personal responsibility, if something is my fault, it is almost definitely my responsibility*. If something is not my fault, then fault says nothing about responsibility. I'm not personally responsible but I still might have responsibility for it under some other doctrine.

*still not sure how to handle conflicts between my responsibility for a fault and my responsibility with eg: my dependents

Why does personal responsibility matter at all here? That's where our two sub-threads meet. Let's say you represent society. You get to decide whether I qualify for assistance; whether I am a responsible person, though I claim to be one now; ultimately, whether giving me assistance would be a net good or bad for society. You have to inconvenience a lot of people a little bit to help me. This is a sort of real-life trolley problem and the basis of welfare.

You may be a Stoic but society would collapse if people could not make these kinds of character judgements. You don't have to assume my state of mind, just the facts and history. There's harm and suffering on the line, and inaction is a decision. How do you rule?

Originally Posted by Scylla

Because in his situation is at least partially a function of his choices, right?

Partially, but not necessarily enough to say I am personally responsible for the dire situation. It could have been a single car accident as described upthread.

~Max 251

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Scylla

So, if I am evaluating Fred’s creditworthiness for a loan, I am not a making a personal judgement of him in the judgements sense (“he’s a loser,”. “I’m better than him.”) I am just evaluating whether or not the loan makes sense.

A lender evaluates whether or not Fred is a financially responsible person. Financial responsibility is a form of personal responsibility. "Fred has a sense of financial responsibility. He has not missed a single payment in the past ten years." "Fred has no sense of financial responsibility. I see that we have already given him multiple extensions on existing loans and he tends to make partial payments after the due date."

A hiring manager evaluates whether or not Fred is a responsible person. "Fred's references say he has a solid sense of personal responsibility. When Fred says he will have something done by Friday, he will have something done by Friday." "Fred's references say he has no sense of personal responsibility, and he routinely let projects slip past deadlines."

Even in advice to a friend about a prospective date, you may weigh your opinion based on a judgement of personal responsibility. "Fred is a real solid guy, solid job, solid family, solid friends if I say so myself. He never stands a girl up and he's not the kind of person to cheat. I think he'll treat you well." "Fred? That guy is a sleaze, he's got more debt than the Donald, he'll have you pay for dinner, and he's got a history of disappearing the morning after. Just ask Sue."

~Max 252

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by Max S.

A lender evaluates whether or not Fred is a financially responsible person.

No they don’t.

They just decide whether or not they will get paid on time, and whether the collateral is a desirable alternative. It’s a pretty strict numbers thing.

Financial responsibility is a form of personal responsibility. "Fred has a sense of financial responsibility. He has not missed a single payment in the past ten years." "Fred has no sense of financial responsibility. I see that we have already given him multiple extensions on existing loans and he tends to make partial payments after the due date."

Nope. It’s not like that. Fred can have a perfect payment history and if his debt to income is too high, than his personal responsibility is moot. If his collateral is really good it might not matter how big a piece of shit he has been, because the lender might want the collateral.

A hiring manager evaluates whether or not Fred is a responsible person. "Fred's references say he has a solid sense of personal responsibility. When Fred says he will have something done by Friday, he will have something done by Friday." "Fred's references say he has no sense of personal responsibility, and he routinely let projects slip past deadlines."

I think you are stretching to put it in these terms. I’d be surprised to hear a hiring manager do so, especially in today’s environment where references are tough to get because of liability. They are most likely going to look at qualifications, salary requirements and interviews. You are not going to learn the kind of things you are talking about until after they’ve been hired.

Even in advice to a friend about a prospective date, you may weigh your opinion based on a judgement of personal responsibility. "Fred is a real solid guy, solid job, solid family, solid friends if I say so myself. He never stands a girl up and he's not the kind of person to cheat. I think he'll treat you well." "Fred? That guy is a sleaze, he's got more debt than the Donald, he'll have you pay for dinner, and he's got a history of disappearing the morning after. Just ask Sue."

~Max

I will give you this last one, but that seems to be a case where judging is specifically called for. 253

[Scylla]

Max:

I noticed you didn’t respond to my comments that perhaps we are not talking about the exact same thing. Thoughts? 254

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Scylla

No they don’t.

They just decide whether or not they will get paid on time, and whether the collateral is a desirable alternative. It’s a pretty strict numbers thing.

Nope. It’s not like that. Fred can have a perfect payment history and if his debt to income is too high, than his personal responsibility is moot. If his collateral is really good it might not matter how big a piece of shit he has been, because the lender might want the collateral.

Will you admit that personal/financial responsibility is sometimes a factor when evaluating a loan application? Not everybody owns a house or car to put up as collateral. Some people rent/lease, many people already took our loans to finance their house/car.

Originally Posted by Scylla

I think you are stretching to put it in these terms. I’d be surprised to hear a hiring manager do so, especially in today’s environment where references are tough to get because of liability. They are most likely going to look at qualifications, salary requirements and interviews. You are not going to learn the kind of things you are talking about until after they’ve been hired.

Think what you may, I made hiring decisions in that manner last week. The references factor into the beginning and the end of the hiring process - either it gets the applicant's foot in the door, or it is the critical factor in the final round, or both. Especially with an entry-level position, references are important.

Besides, the same sort of thing comes up during the annual review. That's when I base my evaluation on personal experience, but the effect is usually upon wages instead of hire/fire.

~Max 255

[Max S.]

Among those of us who I think identify as conservative, I found these definitions:

Originally Posted by Shodan

"Personal responsibility" means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did.

Originally Posted by Max S.

On the one hand, "It is right to give every man his due". This is Plato's definition of morality, and equivocal to personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by Scylla

Personal responsibility is just the ethic for how you choose to live your life, hence the “personal.” It has nothing to do with anybody else.

The idea is that you be prudent and self reliant and avoid becoming becoming a burden on loved ones, or society at large. It’s a powerful tool. It’s about deciding not to be a victim and continuing to strive and believe that you are in control of your destiny when life knocks you down.

All it really is is an attitude. It’s telling yourself that you are still in the fight when all you want to do is quit.

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

Personal responsibility: You are free to make whatever decision you wish, those decisions come with consequences.

I think puddleglum is a conservative, and I think he equates personal responsibility with self reliance (not totally sure):

Originally Posted by puddleglum

What Romney get right is that the first responsibility for everyone is to take care of themselves and their family. If everyone did that then there would be no need for other people to do it for them... The only thing that can help people is self reliance and if universally practiced it would solve nearly every political problem.

And then I believe WillFarnaby is a libertarian, but his definition seems in line with the conservative ones:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I have no responsibility towards anyone other than those I voluntarily interact with including my family, friends, employers, business associates, coworkers, and in some cases neighbors.

I believe thorny_locust is not a conservative (I'm she's new here), but she offers the following which I pretty much agree with:

Originally Posted by thorny locust

I get the impression that what conservatives mean by "personal responsibility" is a combination of two things:

1) each person is responsible for their own actions, and the socially-expected results of those actions.

2) each adult is financially responsible for paying their own bills, and those of any minor children they have.

I'm not sure how Crane identifies and I don't fully agree with the rest of his argument, but he says this:

Originally Posted by Crane

In the military I was taught that there is no responsibility without commensurate authority. That should apply to the Conservative concept of personal responsibility.

To a certain extent, I think you stand out from the pack in saying the judgement of others' personal responsibility has nothing to do with personal responsibility. I have trouble separating the idea of being "prudent and self reliant" from simply taking responsibility for one's own actions. You seem to think there's a difference, and further, that the difference somehow precludes judgement of others. I don't follow you there.

Prudence is just being reasonable. Self-reliance flows from self-discipline (pushing yourself to do what you need to do). If you keep discipline, you will realize that you can in fact do what you need to do. That is called self-confidence. After some time you will make the inference that you will do what you need to do, and come to rely on your self-confidence. That is called self-reliance. Once you have self-confidence and self-reliance, you can start keeping promises to other people. Not just explicit promises, but implicit ones too - for example when borrowing a lawnmower you implicitly promise to return it in good condition. If there is a reasonable expectation for you to do something after taking a certain action, then taking that action means you make the implicit promise.

Other people notice that you keep your promises, and a pattern emerges. A person who keeps their promises is called a responsible person. These other people who notice a pattern of responsibility make the same inference as a judgement of your character, but this time it is called personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is like a AAA rating. It basically means that you keep your word; you take responsibility for your actions. Other people constantly rely on that, and you constantly rely on your judgement of other people's personal responsibility.

So really, the difference between personal responsibility and self-confidence is the difference between the words "a person's house" and "my house". Both are used to describe possession of a house, and similarly both personal responsibility and self-confidence describe the same concept. Self-reliability is therefore analogous to reliance upon someone's personal responsibility.

~Max 256

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Max S.

I'm not sure how Crane identifies and I don't fully agree with the rest of his argument, but he says this:

To a certain extent, I think you stand out from the pack in saying the judgement of others' personal responsibility has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Crane can speak for himself, but to me the idea of personal responsibility includes authority over yourself. You make your own decisions to the extent possible, and are allowed to suffer or enjoy the consequences to the extent possible.

Whether or not other people think I am personally responsible shouldn't matter - I am responsible. And I am, or should be, prepared to take the consequences without excuse. But if I make a decision and someone else makes a different decision, and it turns out well for me and badly for them, that's not my fault any more than it's theirs if it's vice versa.

Obviously these are general principles rather than 100% in every situation. But above you mentioned student loan debt, and child support.

If I decide to take on student loan debt, and so does Joe X, and I wind up employed in my career field and Joe graduates with a degree in Communication and winds up in retail, we are both responsible for our outcomes. His choice of majors does not obligate me, nor does mine obligate him. Or I decide to have a child, and so does Joe. I get married first and stay married and support my child. He doesn't get married, or he gets divorced, and has to pay child support.

We are both still responsible for our child. Nothing about our differing circumstances absolves us - both on the hook, and the fact that it might be more difficult and painful for him to pay than for me to pay changes nothing.

Now, we both lose our jobs. Guess what - nothing has changed for either of us.

Sometimes no excuse is good enough.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But "I will do what I want and if I fail someone else should pay for it" is not "personal responsibility". That's more like the "privatize profits and socialize risk" that liberals seem to object to with banks.

Regards,
Shodan 257

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

I disagree with the authors of the BOE’s paper

For the purposes of this thread, the BOE and I will agree to disagree with you.

You’re taking a general concept, that banks receive loan payments and then reloan those funds, a concept that fractional reserve banking, the subject that you brought up, depends on and you're trying to refute it by bringing up a specific circumstance, and then using a poor cite that only marginally relates to that circumstance. You’re also arguing that lending is at a low point but ignoring that as recently as 2017, lending was at an all-time high. Most economists are worried that worldwide debt is too high, not too low.

I used to have a bookmark with a real time listing of the excess reserve, but the computer that that was on is no longer with us, and I just grabbed the first cite that proved my point, that banks are not waiting on money to come back before they can make loans, and that cite did prove my point. Contrary to what you assert here, I did not argue that lending is at a low point, and so did not ignore that it was at an all time high, so that entire paragraph of yours is trying to attack a point I never made.

I did say that banks are sitting on capital that they would like to lend out to qualified borrowers, but that in no way fits to your description of my argument.

I'm suggesting it. If you forgive a set of student loans, you better ensure that no equivalent of future student loans is available. Because if it is, the next set of borrowers who've made bad lending decisions will expect their debt to be forgiven and will howl with outrage if they don't receive the same giveaway the previous borrowers received.

Yeah, I do think that the first step is to address how the students got into debt in the first place, then to address the debts that students have acquired already. I've pointed this out a few times, so for you to repeat this as an issue makes me wonder what exactly it is that you are trying to argue here.

No moral hazard there.

At the start of the thread, didn't you object to whataboutism? I'm happy to respond, but I don't want to react to something you object to.

No, I did not object to whataboutism, I accused you of whataboutism, as this is a thread about "whether or not personal responsibility is even a value, and JohnT's point about (if it is a value) it's uniquely conservative. " as stated in the OP. Which would put my point about CEO's writing giant paychecks on the back of bankrupting corporations a very valid question as to conservative values, and pointing at democrats being concerned about student loans is not.

No.

The would you say that the person that the party that is affiliated with conservatives nominated someone who exemplifies the ideals of personal responsibility?

I've already refuted that. The students paid for their education. Their payments entered the economy. Those payments were based on borrowed funds. If the students made poor forecasting decisions about borrowing for their education, then their personal economy is certainly hurt. However, the effect that subset economy is offset by the subset that received the funds, the university economy.

No, you disagreed with that. A disagreement is not a refutation.

Anyway, enough about banking and economics.

Fair enough, but I do recommend you just google the words "Lending creates money", or "paying a loan destroys money", as it seems that these are things that you are unaware of.

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

This is a thread hijack, which I started, but within modern times, I don’t think you can find a better government investment than vaccinations. The benefit/cost ratio is probably in the hundred-thousands. I agree and have stated that education is a societal investment. However, at some point, the beneficiaries of that investment need to pay it back. This is especially true if the students have received greater benefits than someone who opted out of those benefits due to cost.

A better investment, as far as medical dollars and lives saved, sure. As an investment in stimulating the economy, especially into the future, not really.

You say that at some point, the beneficiaries need to pay it back, and they will, in the form of taxes that go towards educating the next generation. When is the generation that got free education to the standards needed for a living wage, along with much cheaper college education if they wanted to go further going to "pay that back"? The students who receive the greater benefits will be higher earners, which means higher tax payers.

Because at a certain point, societally necessary education turns into personally beneficial education. There’s no clear dividing line between the two, and indeed the point isn’t binary, but a crossing of a variable percentage threshold. Nevertheless, American society has determined that point to be high school graduation. Students who pursue college education are generally expected to pay for at least a part of their education and often the entirety. The students borrow student loans to receive the personally beneficial education. No one is forcing them to do so, and if the education is not personally beneficial to them, they can choose not to pursue it.

We used to only give a 5th grade education, as that was what was needed in the workforce. We had about the same fight in making later grades paid by the public as we are now. I don't know that American society has decided the point of "personally beneficial" education is high school. I think that is simply the status quo, that is simply how it is, and has been since the last time that American Society decided that it needed to better educate its citizens in order to have the workforce with the skills it needed.

The entire point of this is to recognize that American society has declared that a high school diploma is not enough to be a fully engaged and productive member of society. You may disagree, but the companies out that that won't talk to you without a degree show that your disagreement is based on your opinion on what you are willing to allow someone else to have, but is not based on the facts.

As is, college education is highly subsidized by the state. Is that also something that you disagree with?

The students are making an investment in their university education that they will have to pay off later, unless that debt is relieved. While attending university, they are undergoing an expense which they are not paying off with an asset, but are instead accepting a liability. My argument is that they are knowingly accepting this liability, which will need to be paid off later.

My argument is that they are also making an investment into the future of society. They are making an investment in some companies future workforce. The investment they are making in themselves is one that is made with inadequate information and even fewer choices.

If I’m not creating a strawman, why are you accusing me of doing so? Also, in a thread discussing personal responsibility, to state that a question relating to personal responsibility is a false question is a dodge of the question.

How does my point that your question is not relevant to anything I said indicate that you are *not* creating a strawman. That is exactly what a strawman is. You demanded to know what statement you were strawmanning, when I said none, that was not getting you off the hook for making things up, that was pointing out that your fabrication was not related to anything I had said. In fact, the question that you are asking there is a strawman question as well, as once again, it assumes facts not in evidence.

Your "question" is not relevant, and is purely meant as an accusation. This is not a good faith debating tactic. It is meant only as a gotcha question, and has no reason or ability to advance a productive conversation.

I’m sure there’s more to the remainder of your response to debate, but I think this current post is long enough.

There's a bit you did skip there, but that's fine. Some quick summaries, I do not agree with Warren's position on student loans as the best thing to do, but I do agree with her position as a starting negotiating point when dealing with people who want to do nothing. I also do not feel as though students are given a real choice. They are told to either go into an enormous amount of debt, or they will have to struggle to even find a living wage job.

I also had a question that you avoided, but I would guess the answer, based on what you have said here, is "No." The question, "Do you think that society should provide our next generation with the tools that are required to succeed? " (If I wanted to make it a strawman, as in your accusatory questions, I would say, "Why do you want future generations to fail?")

Given that tuition is raising faster than inflation, and that there are fewer and fewer opportunities for those without a college diploma to get ahead, this is a problem that will only get worse. How bad are you willing to let things get before you will allow it to be addressed as more than a problem for the individual students to deal with?

Personally I think that if we allow our future generations to have fewer opportunities and resources than we do, then that is the definition of the failure of civilization. 258

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Max S.

I believe thorny_locust is not a conservative

Correct. I'm occasionally idiosyncratic but usually mostly in the liberal camp.

-- will probably have more to say in this thread again eventually; but I need to go back and sort through several pages and think about what I'm saying, and don't have a lot of time to spare right now. 259

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Max S.

Technically that would be what I'm talking about, but I had in mind situations more along the lines of my post #218. People with heavy obligations that cannot be discharged with bankruptcy, such as medical, student loans, child support. To the point that they work multiple jobs and still don't make a "living wage".

~Max

Max, are you under the assumption that the people with bankruptcies, student loans, and/or child support are blameless for their own choices? Because they don't make enough to fulfill those obligations? 260

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

Max, are you under the assumption that the people with bankruptcies, student loans, and/or child support are blameless for their own choices? Because they don't make enough to fulfill those obligations?

No and no. I started writing out a detailed reply but there are so many possible reasons for you to ask me this question that I had better leave it at "no". Why do you ask?

~Max 261

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Crane can speak for himself, but to me the idea of personal responsibility includes authority over yourself. You make your own decisions to the extent possible, and are allowed to suffer or enjoy the consequences to the extent possible.

Whether or not other people think I am personally responsible shouldn't matter - I am responsible. And I am, or should be, prepared to take the consequences without excuse. But if I make a decision and someone else makes a different decision, and it turns out well for me and badly for them, that's not my fault any more than it's theirs if it's vice versa.

Obviously these are general principles rather than 100% in every situation. But above you mentioned student loan debt, and child support.

If I decide to take on student loan debt, and so does Joe X, and I wind up employed in my career field and Joe graduates with a degree in Communication and winds up in retail, we are both responsible for our outcomes. His choice of majors does not obligate me, nor does mine obligate him. Or I decide to have a child, and so does Joe. I get married first and stay married and support my child. He doesn't get married, or he gets divorced, and has to pay child support.

We are both still responsible for our child. Nothing about our differing circumstances absolves us - both on the hook, and the fact that it might be more difficult and painful for him to pay than for me to pay changes nothing.

Now, we both lose our jobs. Guess what - nothing has changed for either of us.

Sometimes no excuse is good enough.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But "I will do what I want and if I fail someone else should pay for it" is not "personal responsibility". That's more like the "privatize profits and socialize risk" that liberals seem to object to with banks.

Regards,
Shodan

Sorry, I had meant to address that post to Scylla. I agree with most everything you have written, but I would put more emphasis on the 'doesn't apply 100%' because life is complicated.

~Max 262

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Shodan

"Personal responsibility" means I am personally responsible for the things I personally did. Feeling responsible for things I didn't do may or may not be a good thing, but it isn't the same thing.

And it goes both ways. I am responsible for the things I do wrong, as well as the things I do right.

Obviously it's not 100% - maybe society is partly to blame if I rob a liquor store, just like it is partly the reason that I graduated at the top of my class at West Point. But by default, the locus of responsibility is me, not anybody else.

Your example of feeling responsible for the racist town you didn't found or participate in isn't "personal responsibility" in that sense - it's altruism, which is a fine but not synonymous thing.

Regards,
Shodan

If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that? 263

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that?

How would you have him reconcile that? 264

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

If there is a social injustice or unjust history from which you derive unsought, unasked for benefit. Do you have a responsibility to do anything?

I don't think you personally have oppressed anyone but you still benefit from the oppression of others. how do you reconcile that?

Depending on the circumstances, I might have a responsibility to do something. But that responsibility would not flow from "personal responsibility". It might be charity or utilitarianism or religion or what have you.

~Max 265

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

How would you have him reconcile that?

I'd start with having him acknowledge it. Then ask him what his values tell him ought to be done. 266

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Max S.

Depending on the circumstances, I might have a responsibility to do something. But that responsibility would not flow from "personal responsibility". It might be charity or utilitarianism or religion or what have you.

~Max

So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?

Because if it doesn't then I'm not sure that personal responsibility is a particularly convincing philosophy on which to base a society. 267

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?

Personal responsibility plays into morality, not the other way around. Fairness/equity, which is different than morality, sometimes clashes with personal responsibility. Which comes out supreme depends on one's philosophy.

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Because if it doesn't then I'm not sure that personal responsibility is a particularly convincing philosophy on which to base a society.

Personal responsibility is not an all-encompassing moral philosophy on its own.

~Max 268

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So does morality/equity/fairness play into personal responsibility at all?

Yes, it does.

If I steal your car and crash it and cause $1000 in damage, who should pay for that damage, me or my rich next-door neighbor? Most people would say it was me, even though my neighbor can more easily sustain the loss. He could volunteer to do so out of altruism, but that is not the same thing as saying he is personally responsible. Because it is not fair/equitable to make him responsible for what I do, or the consequences.

Who is responsible in the old story, the ant or the grasshopper?

Regards,
Shodan 269

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Yes, it does.

If I steal your car and crash it and cause $1000 in damage, who should pay for that damage, me or my rich next-door neighbor? Most people would say it was me, even though my neighbor can more easily sustain the loss. He could volunteer to do so out of altruism, but that is not the same thing as saying he is personally responsible. Because it is not fair/equitable to make him responsible for what I do, or the consequences.

Interesting non-sequitor.

Who is responsible in the old story, the ant or the grasshopper?

You mean the socialist ant who works for the community and is therefore then supported by the community vs the libertarian grasshopper who owes nothing to anyone else? 270

[Shodan]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than that you don't understand it? Although I am not sure I can explain "who is responsible - the person who committed the action or some random stranger" in any simpler terms.

Regards,
Shodan 271

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than that you don't understand it? Although I am not sure I can explain "who is responsible - the person who committed the action or some random stranger" in any simpler terms.

Well, maybe the problem is that you are trying to make it too simple. It is a complex subject with quite a bit of nuance, and making it simple ignores much of that.

A much better analogy for the car situation that you broached would be that you stole my car, then used it to provide rides to your friends, who trashed it while getting benefit out of it.

Now, you are the one who stole the car, so you are the one ultimately responsible, but do you say in this instance that your friends bear no responsibility whatsoever?



It was you that brought up the example of the ant vs grasshopper, if you think it is irrelevant, then why did you ring it up? I was just wondering which one of those you were considering to be the more responsible one, as it would seem that it is the ant that it responsible, but it is the grasshopper that you emulate. 272

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Well, maybe the problem is that you are trying to make it too simple.

And still you didn't understand it.

It was you that brought up the example of the ant vs grasshopper, if you think it is irrelevant, then why did you ring it up?

I didn't ring it up; I posted it.

I was just wondering which one of those you were considering to be the more responsible one, as it would seem that it is the ant that it responsible, but it is the grasshopper that you emulate.

A story for children, and still you don't get it.

:shrugs: I don't pretend to be better than Aesop at explaining things.

Regards,
Shodan 273

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

And still you didn't understand it.

And you're still wrong, contrary to your confident, yet completely unsupported and contradicted assumption.

I didn't ring it up; I posted it.

My apologies, I did make a slight typo there. Either you were incapable of parsing the sentence with a single typo, or you are using a slight mistake as an excuse to avoid the question.

So, assuming that you were actually confused, then with all due apologies for the prior typo: If you didn't think it was relevant, why did you bring it up?

A story for children, and still you don't get it.

:shrugs: I don't pretend to be better than Aesop at explaining things.

No, once again, you make assertions that are incorrect. I got it just fine. I take it that means that you are unable to answer such a simple question? 274

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

No, once again, you make assertions that are incorrect. I got it just fine.

No, I don't think you did. I doubt very much if someone who reads the story of the ant and the grasshopper, and thinks the grasshopper is the one suggested for emulation, gets it. You apparently thought that was the point of the story. So, you don't get it.

I take it that means that you are unable to answer such a simple question?

If this is the question you mean -

If you didn't think it was relevant, why did you bring it up?

It was relevant, that's why. The idea that it was irrelevant was yours, and, as we have seen, apparently based on your lack of understanding of a children's bedtime story.

So, you're right. It's a simple question. A stupid question, but a simple one, and has been answered. Now go to bed.

Regards,
Shodan 275

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Yes, it does.

If I steal your car and crash it and cause $1000 in damage, who should pay for that damage, me or my rich next-door neighbor? Most people would say it was me, even though my neighbor can more easily sustain the loss. He could volunteer to do so out of altruism, but that is not the same thing as saying he is personally responsible. Because it is not fair/equitable to make him responsible for what I do, or the consequences.

Who is responsible in the old story, the ant or the grasshopper?

Regards,
Shodan

I don't think this allegory of the stolen car properly shows the interplay between equity and personal responsibility. Let's say Bob the pauper steals my car. He forced me out of the car at knifepoint and I am totally in the clear as far as blame goes. Bob crashes the stolen car into your house, causing you moderate but not life-threatening injuries. Bob dies during the crash, and your home insurance sucks. Now you have $10,000 in repairs and medical expenses, of which maybe half will be paid for by insurance. You don't have the money to pick up the rest. The deceased perpetrator has something like $30 to his name. I am also out some $2,000 because my comprehensive auto insurance has a deductible, but my insurance isn't going to pay you. Now here's the moral question: should your neighbor help pay to fix your house?

~Max 276

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No, I don't think you did. I doubt very much if someone who reads the story of the ant and the grasshopper, and thinks the grasshopper is the one suggested for emulation, gets it.

Ah, I see where you went wrong in your feeble attempt at understanding. I did not say that the grasshopper was the one to be emulated, I was saying that the grasshopper is the one that those who eschew not only personal, but social, responsibility are emulating. I agree that the ant is the one who sets the better example to follow. I disagree that, given your and those of your compatriots in this thread's contributions, that you are in any way emulating the example of the ant.

So, once again, and as usual, you are wrong.

You apparently thought that was the point of the story. So, you don't get it.

You apparently thought it was actually a story about some insects, rather than a metaphor, which must be why you were not able to understand my question to you.

If this is the question you mean -

No, that would be the follow up question to the previous question that you avoided answering. I'm sorry that keeping track of a few back and forths is so confusing to you.

It was relevant, that's why. The idea that it was irrelevant was yours, and, as we have seen, apparently based on your lack of understanding of a children's bedtime story.

Ah, so you think it's just a children's bedtime story, and not an allegory about the consequences of decisions made by individuals and societies.

So, you're right. It's a simple question. A stupid question, but a simple one, and has been answered. Now go to bed.

Actually it has not been answered. Do you identify with the ant or the grasshopper? That is the question that you have gone to great pains to avoid answering.

You have also avoided discussing the fact that your car analogy was quite flawed, in that your rich neighbor did not get a benefit out of you stealing the car. As the actual situation being discussed is that you are benefiting from participating in society, the analogy needs to take into account a way that your rich neighbor benefited from your theft.

To make is simple for you, if I do something "wrong", whether it be illegal, unethical, or counterproductive, and you get a benefit out of that, do you bear any responsibility for the harm that my actions caused? 277

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

You have also avoided discussing the fact that your car analogy was quite flawed, in that your rich neighbor did not get a benefit out of you stealing the car. As the actual situation being discussed is that you are benefiting from participating in society, the analogy needs to take into account a way that your rich neighbor benefited from your theft.

I think we could at least fit this in my analogy by replacing "neighbor" with "the home repair contractor".

~Max 278

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

You mean the socialist ant who works for the community and is therefore then supported by the community vs the libertarian grasshopper who owes nothing to anyone else?

Wow. 279

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Wow.

Yeah, I can absolutely understand how you would have a feeling of epiphany when you realize that children's tales taught at a young age were actually meant as allegories to things in the real world, and not just bedtime stories. 280

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Max S.

I think we could at least fit this in my analogy by replacing "neighbor" with "the home repair contractor".

~Max

The question as I see it, is not a matter of direct harms. Obviously,if you, through intent or neglect, but certainly as your fault, cause me harm, then it is your personal responsibility to make me whole. Agreed?

In Shodan's car example, the rich neighbor had nothing to do with the theft or damage, and so has no reason to have any responsibility, to this, I think we should also all agree.

So the question is really where between those extremes does your culpability for the harms endured by another end, how liable are you for those harms, and what is your responsibility for making them whole?

If someone steals a car and gives it to me, then I obviously have to make the owner as whole as I can by giving it back, and if I made any damages to it during my possession, then I should have to pay for those, though the original thief would be held much more responsible.

If someone steals a car and gives me a ride to work, then I have benefited from the harm done to the original owner, even if I have not added to it personally in a meaningful quantity. This is the more nebulous area as to what my liability could be, and what sort of recompense the owner could demand from me.

And that final scenario is where I think we are as a society. We benefit from the way that society is set up, and yet, there are those who are harmed by the way that society is set up. So, what do we owe to those who are harmed by the mechanism that benefits us, even if we personally do not add any sort of meaningful harm to them?

I feel that the more benefit that you get from society, the more you should give back, both because you can, and because your benefit comes from the harm of others, and the greater the benefit that you receive, the more that you personally add to the harm of others stops being meaningless. 281

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Yeah, I can absolutely understand how you would have a feeling of epiphany when you realize that children's tales taught at a young age were actually meant as allegories to things in the real world, and not just bedtime stories.

Rather than doubling down like this, you should consider spinning it that you were try to be funny at Shodan's expense but everybody is too stupid to get it. Nobody will believe that either, but it might allow you to move on from one of the most hilariously wrong things ever posted at any board. But, I know, fish gotta fly, birds gotta swim and you have to cling to an egregiously off-base statement because internet. 282

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Rather than doubling down like this, you should consider spinning it that you were try to be funny at Shodan's expense but everybody is too stupid to get it. Nobody will believe that either, but it might allow you to move on from one of the most hilariously wrong things ever posted at any board. But, I know, fish gotta fly, birds gotta swim and you have to cling to an egregiously off-base statement because internet.

Hmmm, nah, but did you want to talk about what personal responsibility that you have towards another person who lives in the same society?

I thought the ant metaphor was very apt, as it showed that groups working together, and taking a collective responsibility for the survival of their community was superior to the grasshopper who only was concerned for himself, so that when bad times came, the ants had resources to tide the community over until the winter was over, but the grasshopper owed nothing to anyone, and no one owed anything to him.

So he died, cold, starving, and alone.

Or you know, it could just be a children's bedtime story. 283

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Nobody will believe that either, but it might allow you to move on from one of the most hilariously wrong things ever posted at any board.

It's not even that good.

Regards,
Shodan 284

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It's not even that good.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than that you don't understand it? 285

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

In Shodan's car example, the rich neighbor had nothing to do with the theft or damage, and so has no reason to have any responsibility, to this, I think we should also all agree.

We don't always agree on that, esp. regarding a publicly funded safety net. No personal responsibility here, but there might be other morally compelling reasons for the rich neighbor to pay. It is, after all, unfair to you if Shodan cannot afford to fix what he has caused, and nobody else steps up to fill in the gap. But on the other hand nobody except Shodan is personally responsible for the harm done to you. That's what I mean by personal responsibility versus equity.

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

So the question is really where between those extremes does your culpability for the harms endured by another end, how liable are you for those harms, and what is your responsibility for making them whole?

My understanding is that fault = culpability = personal responsibility; personal responsibility ∈ responsibility. I would say personal responsibility ends at the first "extreme" you mentioned. If the person is not at fault, they are not personally responsible. In the absence of a specific law, liability should be based on any reasonable guarantees made (explicit or implicit) using 'what a reasonable person would expect' as a fallback. This "reasonable" thing means no gimmicks like, sure I'll babysit your kid but I am not responsible for anything that happens to the kid who is under my care. A person's responsibility for fixing harms is at least their personal liability.

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

If someone steals a car and gives it to me, then I obviously have to make the owner as whole as I can by giving it back, and if I made any damages to it during my possession, then I should have to pay for those, though the original thief would be held much more responsible.

If the thief gave you stolen property, you do not necessarily have to give that property back. Pretend someone embezzled my life savings and gave it to a charity, which distributed it among needy families. Let's say it took law enforcement a year to track down the money. Those families bought houses and had children, assuming they had charity money to help them out. Are those families personally responsible for the loss of my life savings? Not in the slightest. Am I in the right to call back those funds? Absolutely not.

Now to the embezzler. Does she have the funds to repay me? No. Can she work out a payment plan? No - now a convicted felon and embezzler, her career skills (bookkeeping) are useless. She can't even afford to live on her own, with the minimum wage as it is.

I lose. Personal responsibility versus equity.

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

If someone steals a car and gives me a ride to work, then I have benefited from the harm done to the original owner, even if I have not added to it personally in a meaningful quantity. This is the more nebulous area as to what my liability could be, and what sort of recompense the owner could demand from me.

I would say you're off the hook with absolutely zero personal responsibility for the extra miles, unless you knew the car was stolen. No matter what the thief does with the car, he or she is responsible to the owner for a car in the state it was stolen, plus any harms resulting from the absence of the car, plus any benefits derived from usage of the stolen car. This is much like a loan with principal and interest, plus turning over 100% profit.

~Max 286

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than that you don't understand it?

If you're going to snark, at least use your own material.

Originally Posted by Max S.

We don't always agree on that, esp. regarding a publicly funded safety net.

Which is pretty much the point. The rich neighbor has no reason to have any responsibility, but a publicly funded safety net means he would have to pay anyway.

That's the source of the conflict - even people who admit that sometimes, people who aren't responsible should still have to pay. Even for free riders like the grasshopper. In a system with no personal responsibility, the ants should institute a wealth tax on themselves and use it to support the grasshopper, even if he did nothing to contribute to the system. Out of altruism, I suppose.

In theory, progressives know there is such a thing as personal responsibility. In practice and in individual cases, they won't admit it.

Should people who obey the law be treated differently and better than those who don't? Most people accept that they should. Unless it is someone who illegally snuck into the country - he should get amnesty and be allowed to stay, while the people waiting their turn in line in accordance with the law still have to go thru the process. If I delay gratification and invest my money in hopes of leaving it to my children, should I be allowed to do so? No, I should have it taxed away as much as possible and given to those who I have never met. Etc.

Regards,
Shodan 287

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In a system with no personal responsibility, the ants should institute a wealth tax on themselves and use it to support the grasshopper, even if he did nothing to contribute to the system. Out of altruism, I suppose.

Maybe out of altruism. Maybe out of an entirely non-altruistic desire not to have to step over the rotting bodies on the street, or to have said bodies infect the air and water.

Or possibly out of awareness that people who do a great deal to contribute to the system often nevertheless wind up in need of support, and that everybody is unable to contribute to the system at some points in their lives and might become unexpectedly in that state at any time; combined with a desire not to have to worry about becoming one of those bodies on the street, should they find themselves in one of those categories. 288

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Maybe out of altruism. Maybe out of an entirely non-altruistic desire not to have to step over the rotting bodies on the street, or to have said bodies infect the air and water.

Are we discussing the dead rotting bodies, or the living rotting bodies of the drug addicts who are receiving social support, but nevertheless continue their public begging in order to acquire enough money to fund their addiction? I'm sure you feel sorry for those people.

Or possibly out of awareness that people who do a great deal to contribute to the system often nevertheless wind up in need of support, and that everybody is unable to contribute to the system at some points in their lives and might become unexpectedly in that state at any time; combined with a desire not to have to worry about becoming one of those bodies on the street, should they find themselves in one of those categories.

Which, of course 289

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Or possibly out of awareness that people who do a great deal to contribute to the system often nevertheless wind up in need of support...

What did the grasshopper do to contribute to the system?

Regards,
Shodan 290

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In theory, progressives know there is such a thing as personal responsibility. In practice and in individual cases, they won't admit it.

Should people who obey the law be treated differently and better than those who don't? Most people accept that they should. Unless it is someone who illegally snuck into the country - he should get amnesty and be allowed to stay, while the people waiting their turn in line in accordance with the law still have to go thru the process. If I delay gratification and invest my money in hopes of leaving it to my children, should I be allowed to do so? No, I should have it taxed away as much as possible and given to those who I have never met. Etc.

I thought you were done telling bedtime stories, and then you have to go up and dream up this fantasy that has no basis in reality? 291

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

Are we discussing the dead rotting bodies, or the living rotting bodies of the drug addicts who are receiving social support, but nevertheless continue their public begging in order to acquire enough money to fund their addiction? I'm sure you feel sorry for those people.

Which, of course

Do you want to finish this post, and to clear up the quoting?

[ETA: I see I messed up the quoting. Which law does that come under?]

Originally Posted by Shodan

What did the grasshopper do to contribute to the system?

Regards,
Shodan

https://animals.mom.me/grasshoppers-...cial-5185.html

Presuming that you're actually talking about the human analog: a) humans aren't grasshoppers b) a number of people have rewritten the tale to point out that music is a valuable contribution to the system and c) are you seriously claiming that people who have worked their butts off at essential jobs never wind up in need of public assistance? 292

[Shodan]

Are you seriously claiming that the grasshopper was working his butt off at an essential job?

Regards,
Shodan 293

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Are you seriously claiming that the grasshopper was working his butt off at an essential job?

Regards,
Shodan

Are you seriously claiming that we're actually talking about grasshoppers?

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Presuming that you're actually talking about the human analog: a) humans aren't grasshoppers b) a number of people have rewritten the tale to point out that music is a valuable contribution to the system and c) are you seriously claiming that people who have worked their butts off at essential jobs never wind up in need of public assistance?

294

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Shodan

What did the grasshopper do to contribute to the system?

Regards,
Shodan

In the allegory, the grasshopper did not contribute to the system. The story as written does not capture what thorny locust has described.

The equivalent would be something like an ant which worked during the summer, then one day a strong gust blew her far away. This ant spent a long time looking for her anthill, and did not find her way home until the snow fell. Meanwhile all the other ants worked hard to prepare for the winter. When the lone ant finally came back home on the verge of death, she begged for food and shelter, but the other ants rebuked her request: "you did not work as the rest of us did, so how can you ask for food and shelter now?"

~Max 295

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Max S.

In the allegory, the grasshopper did not contribute to the system. The story as written does not capture what thorny locust has described.

Correct. Progressives don't like the concept of personal responsibility, so they try hard to avoid talking about it. That's why people keep trying to change, or not to understand, the allegory.

"What responsibility do you bear for your own situation" is not a question that liberals like to ask, because the answer is very often something other than "It's not my fault - it's society/institutional racism/class privilege/the government didn't give me enough money/I can't be expected to delay gratification or wear a condom".

So they try to change the subject, or not understand it, or try to claim that fiddle-playing grasshoppers are vital to a functional ant society.

Regards,
Shodan 296

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Progressives don't like the concept of personal responsibility, so they try hard to avoid talking about it.

Do progressives also tend to drink the blood of children and molest sheep? And do you have a cite for this blanket view of millions of Americans, including many service men and women in the military? 297

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Shodan

"What responsibility do you bear for your own situation" is not a question that liberals like to ask, because the answer is very often something other than "It's not my fault - it's society/institutional racism/class privilege/the government didn't give me enough money/I can't be expected to delay gratification or wear a condom".

Let's go back to thorny locust's post #288. In that post she interpreted your remark about altruism as a question: why might the ants institute a wealth tax on themselves and use it to support the grasshopper, even if he did nothing to contribute to the system?

Maybe it was altruism. You already agreed that such a rationale is possible. I would also roll up religious reasons into this category, even if they aren't always altruistic.

Maybe it was a practical "desire not to have to step over rotting bodies on the street", or otherwise deal with dead grasshoppers. You did not respond to that possibility.

Maybe it was because in real life, it is not so easy to distinguish between "ant"-like humans and "grasshopper"-like humans. The ants have good reasons to create a safety net for their own in-group, and so do hard-working human beings. Maybe the hard-working people think the "grasshoppers" can be rehabilitated and eventually pull their own weight again. Maybe they don't think it is worthwhile to screen and exclude grasshoppers from that program. Do you think that is possible?

None of these justifications for a safety net deny that the grasshopper was responsible for its own situation.

~Max 298

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Max S.

Let's go back to thorny locust's post #288. In that post she interpreted your remark about altruism as a question: why might the ants institute a wealth tax on themselves and use it to support the grasshopper, even if he did nothing to contribute to the system?

Maybe it was altruism. You already agreed that such a rationale is possible. I would also roll up religious reasons into this category, even if they aren't always altruistic.

Maybe it was a practical "desire not to have to step over rotting bodies on the street", or otherwise deal with dead grasshoppers. You did not respond to that possibility.

Maybe it was because in real life, it is not so easy to distinguish between "ant"-like humans and "grasshopper"-like humans. The ants have good reasons to create a safety net for their own in-group, and so do hard-working human beings. Maybe the hard-working people think the "grasshoppers" can be rehabilitated and eventually pull their own weight again. Maybe they don't think it is worthwhile to screen and exclude grasshoppers from that program. Do you think that is possible?

None of these justifications for a safety net deny that the grasshopper was responsible for its own situation.

~Max

We have an awful lot of ants that get blown off course.

But still irrelevant when talking about 'personal' responsibility.

What you are looking for, you have found already. You call it altruism. The safety net, is altruism, not borne from personal responsibility. It might even be for the greater good of the 'person' but it still isn't his/her responsibility. 299

[Max S.]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

We have an awful lot of ants that get blown off course.

But still irrelevant when talking about 'personal' responsibility.

What you are looking for, you have found already. You call it altruism. The safety net, is altruism, not borne from personal responsibility. It might even be for the greater good of the 'person' but it still isn't his/her responsibility.

Resolved: iiandyiiii, k9bfriender, Kearsen1, Shodan, thorny locust, and myself actually agree on what personal responsibility is, though we may disagree as to when it determines social policy or carries moral weight.

ETA: and in reference to the original post, personal responsibility does not extend to actions of previous generations, or benefits derived from others' wrongdoing, only to culpability for one's own actions.

~Max 300