True enough, but I don’t think I’m just blithely asserting. The OP is using a term as if it means something without demonstrating any meaning. That’s a blithe assertion if I’ve ever seen one.
Given that almost everyone in the other thread understood what it meant, or at least had pretty close to the same idea, I assert that you’re full of shit. No, that’s not fair, but you are wrong.
Actually, his point was about moral responsibility, as far as I can tell. It’s one thing to say that you are not morally responsible for someone grabbing a coat. It’s another to say that the coat grabbing is not a consequence of your statement.
Depending on the context, Sinaijon may be incorrect (in my opinion). Nevertheless, it looks to me like you have misrepresented his position.
Really, Rand? Do YOU demonstrate the meaning of any term that you use in a post, and if you don’t, does that count as a blithe assertion? Because just in the bit I quoted here, I count 25 terms you used (counting stingily) without demonstrating their meaning. Is that 25 blithe assertions in a partial quote of a post?
Or maybe, just maybe, are co-speakers of a language allowed to use terms from that language without “demonstrating meaning” each time they use a term?
Yes, yes, yes, I get that you’re a big special Randian, and you think morality is for the little people (or whatever–I couldn’t possibly care less about the details of your philosophy). Plenty of people understand what the term means, though, and for plenty of people, including plenty of the most profound thinkers who have ever lived, the term is full of meaning. To dismiss that via blithe assertion is moronic.
The last time I saw such silly definitional handwaving was in an undergrad class when one of my classmates sincerely argued that the definition of capitalism (not the summation–literally the definition we ought to use when talking about capitalism) was “greed.” You’re on his level.
Daniel
Not intentionally. I don’t see a difference between the two, in the context of human interaction. Although obviously Sinaijon and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this anyway, so you have a point.
OK LHOD, point me to a philisopher discussing the circumstances under which one person is “morally responsible” for another’s actions.
Anyone who can say that with a straight face after 8 years of Bush is severely retarded.
Randian… Rand Rover … as in Ayn Rand? Sorry, just kidding.
Anyway, what do you mean “meaningless concept”? With intent to cause harm, I purposely start a panic in a crowded area, with full knowledge that in doing so, several people are likely to suffer injury. Or with full intent, knowledge, and anticipation of benefit, I enter into an agreement with a hit man to kill a rival (or rich relative), fully knowing that the person is likely to act on my words.
Or are you one of those people who will take any abstract concept and, since it can’t be concretely defined or firmly established, decide that it is a “meaningless concept” and go on pretending that things like moral responsibility, love, loyalty, envy, greed, excess, piety, and a rather large list of concepts don’t exist? Quaint, really.
Rand Rover, you don’t believe in moral responsibility. Fine. You don’t think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don’t think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. But since 99% of the rest of the world believes in and generally understands the contours of the concept of moral responsibility, don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous to come into all of these threads acting like someone is proposing some crazy concept?
Schenck v. United States, Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater - isn’t that case kind of similar to what happened here (I’m not familiar with exactly what was said by the radio announcer though)
What makes you think I had a straight face?
Oh not you, but there are some who try to say that with a straight face. Most are priobably America haters of one stripe or another.
Waitaminute. You just moved the goalposts, Bucky. No fair. Watch this:
Post 19:
That’s you, staking out a position. The position being that the concept of moral responsibility is meaningless.
Post 20:
That’s LHOD denying the truth of that position.
Post 21:
That’s you again, reiterating that your position is valid (is not merely a “blithe assertion”), and tacking on an addendum about the OP using the term without “demonstrating any meaning.”
Post 24:
And that’s LHOD again, making the case that the OP’s failure to “demonstrate meaning” in the term “moral responsibility” is irrelevant to the validity of your assertion that such meaning does not exist. By my calculations, the topic of contention is still your assertion that “moral responsibility” is a meaningless concept.
If you want to argue against what LHOD called you out on, you can challenge him to cite a profound thinker or two who advocates for the concept of “moral responsibility” having a demonstrable meaning. You don’t get to challenge him to produce a philosopher who makes the OP’s argument for him.
Well you should, in my opinion. For example, suppose it’s the day before Thanksgiving and I say “Happy Turkey!” to my co-worker, Jack. Unbeknownst to me, Jack is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent with strict instructions: When he hears the phrase “happy turkey,” he must set fire to the nearest Jack-in-the-Box. Which he does.
Is Jack’s arson a consequence of my statement? Of course. Am I morally responsible? Of course not.
What matters is my state of mind when I make the statement, it seem to me.
Thank you.
I don’t agree with his point but I can see the dishonesty in this post. Someone who is the direct cause of something isn’t morally responsible, they are just plain responsible. Moral responsibility is reserved for those who are not the direct cause. Unless you are arguing that Glen Beck is ordering people to go out and kill for him this is a ridiculous post. Rand is arguing that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Hitler is responsible for ordering the holocaust. Those that came before him who helped shape his twisted view would have some measure of moral responsibility. That is the concept.
Thanks! I’m glad I read the whole thread before responding: you said what I was going to say, only in much more detail.
Rover, either you deliberately and dishonestly moved the goalposts hoping nobody would notice, or it was a mistake. YOu’ve already been called out if it was the former. If it was an accident–if you really meant to ask me to point you to profound thinkers who wrote about moral responsibility–you can start with Aristotle, Augustine, and John Stuart Mill. This article is an excellent overview of how moral responsibility is seen by many profound thinkers.
Note especially the deterministic folks: moral responsibility is a meaningful concept even when a person cannot freely choose between good and bad. The point of MR is to change a person’s behavior to something more desirable. If the murderer was a can of gasoline, and Beck’s rants were the match (a match that goes into millions of homes, eventually finding that gasoline), we can prevent the murders by removing the match, and maybe we can do that by shaming Beck.
Daniel
This quote by Aristotle seems peculiarly relevant:
How was he fucking nuts? He was very violent, but there’s no evidence that he was suffering from a formal thought disorder. Rather, he seems to have bought what the right is selling, and acted accordingly.
I don’t think you and Rand are arguing the same thing. Could you clarify your point, because it sounds like you’re saying that Hitler wasn’t responsible for the Holocaust, just for ordering it. What does that really make him responsible for?
My interpretation of what you are saying is consistent with what I, and several others were arguing in the original thread, and what my point about telling someone it’s raining outside means in terms of responsibility. That is, Beck has some level of responsibility for how people react to his whipping up of their level of fear.
I’m not arguing anything. I just had a problem with the post I quoted. RR has a problem with moral responsibility. Not with personal responsibility. In his world everyone is responsible for only his own actions but no one else has any other responsibility for anything they do to influence others. I don’t agree with this. But this is ridiculous:*You don’t think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don’t think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. * Those are two ridiculous examples. In those cases we are talking about people who are directly responsible due to their actions. Moral responsibility doesn’t enter into it. I don’t remember RR ever saying anything like OBL or Hitler were great guys and did nothing wrong. As much as I disagree with him I don’t believe he thinks this way. The post I quoted was stupid and didn’t feel like letting it slide by.