What do you think of this statement? You are always 100% responsible for what you do.

I think it’s true. Now the consequences of your actions should be flexible and take in to account circumstances such as lack of mental capacity and being under influence (although this should make the consequences harsher in some cases, such as drunk driving).
It’s more about traceability and accountability – sure, sometimes you’ll find there’s not a whole heap you can do about it, because it was a 3 year old that left a toy on the railroad that caused the train to derail and kill 100’s…..type thing.

truthiness!

absolute statements rarely are

I completely disagree. Ultimately we are a product of chemical makeup, upbringing, and environment. Everything you are and everything you do is not a choice. You are what you are and decisions you make are because of that. You don’t choose who you are, whether you are Gandhi or Hitler. But because we live in a society of laws we have to maintain some kind of order so that the masses can live in peace, safety, and have some quality of life.

@astrochuck
So, if you do something that impacts me and I want to give feedback – who should I speak to? If you’re not responsible, you’re not the one that can learn from it and giving you the feedback would be irrelevant.

I never said that someone can’t learned from consequence. The question was if we are 100% responsible for everything that we do.

For every action there must be responsibility, so if it’s not with the person(s) behind the action, then who?

Whether you have good or bad judgement (or compulsions, etc.) is a different matter and then I would agree that what you said is true.

Perhaps I’m not articulate enough. The only way one could ever be completely responsible for all that they’ve ever done would be if we had any real free choice. We don’t. Different things out of our control influence our actions. I’m not condoning someone not willing to take responsibility for their actions but, I don’t mean to get too deep, ultimately we don’t have freedom of choice. That being said, we have to have consequences for malfeasance or our society would breakdown and there would be anarchy.

I guess I’m only looking at the surface. If my neighbor throws a bag of rubbish in to my garden, then he’s responsible for doing so. I won’t bother going in to why he felt the need to or thought it was a good idea to do so. As far as I’m concerned, he picked up the bag and threw it and therefore is responsible for that bag of rubbish being thrown in to my garden.

When it comes to consequences or retaliation, then I would certainly look beyond cause and effect and consider what made him do it.

In my opinion, you should live by that statement.

I think maybe I’m looking too deep into the question. If my neighbor dumps something in my yard I would, of course, expect them to clean it up. If the question simply addresses responsibility in society then I would agree, in most instances, that a person is responsible for what they’ve done.

You’re just not as shallow as me…..which is probably a good thing :)

Now, now, I am as shallow as the next flutherite.

I think, in general, it’s true. People rarely want to take responsibility for their actions, citing everything from society to their being drunk as an excuse for why they did something. In my opinion, it wouldn’t be a bad thing if people held themselves more accountable and had no one else to blame for their mistakes. Perhaps it would lead to them attempt to correct their wrong actions.

quote
“The only way one could ever be completely responsible for all that they’ve ever done would be if we had any real free choice. We don’t. Different things out of our control influence our actions.”

@astrochuck – just because ‘different things’ influence our actions, do we not make decisions on how to act on a situation? you always have a choice…learning which to choose is part of life. you might not know the right answer or choice to make in that instant, but you always have a choice. Now, we may not be responsible for how something turns out, but i believe you are always responsible for what you do.

i’m curious as to why you think we don’t have “free choice”. is there some script that I didn’t get?

What makes you choose one way over the other?

How do we want to define “responsible”?

Definition 1: “Responsible” means “performed an action”.
Example: I threw the ball, therefore I was responsible for the ball being thrown.

Definition 2: “Responsible” means “should be held accountable for”.
Example: I may or may not have been the thrower of the ball, but the consequences of the ball being thrown are my fault. Maybe I was supervising the thrower of the ball, or I convinced someone else to throw the ball, or maybe I was the thrower after all.

I’m sure there are other definitions that I’m not thinking of.

It sounds like most answerers of this thread are concerned with who should be held accountable (faulted, blamed, punished, lauded, rewarded, etc.) for actions. So let’s go back to the ball.

Why would I choose to throw a ball? Does it matter if someone says “Hey, throw me that ball”? Does that person share some responsibility for the ball being thrown? What if someone puts a gun to my head and says, “Throw the ball or I’ll blow your brains out”? Then does that person share responsibility for it?

What if I have a mental condition that causes me almost unbearable anxiety if I don’t throw the ball? Then am I still responsible for throwing it? Am I equally as responsible as someone who did not have that mental condition and chose to throw the ball anyway? What about another mental condition that makes throwing balls so incredibly pleasurable that it’s hard to resist? Do you see any difference between someone who throws a ball to avoid suffering versus someone who throws a ball to experience pleasure?

I am also of the school of thought that our decisions are 100% a consequence of our genes and experience. So in an objective sense, from the Universe’s standpoint, I shoulder no responsibility, because what am “I” except for a gene/environment interaction?

But from the standpoint of the human race and law and morality, I should still face consequences for my actions—because aren’t those consequences part of the environment that will shape my future decisions?

What do you mean by “responsible”?

What about this situation that happened last night. My wife was warm, so she opened the window before going to bed. I came to bed later and snored for part of the night (because it’s allergy season) and woke my wife up. Am I “100% responsible” for waking my wife, when it was the result of my environment being altered without my knowledge and it was something I did while unconscious?

edit: what she said. ^

I think of responsible as should be held accountable. now that i read some of your answers though I think I’ll change my answer, I think what I said only applies if there is some sort of choice implied. Charles Manson comes to mind. He did not kill anybody he just told those people to kill them I don’t think he is any more responsable for those people committing murder than heavy metal is for kids doing drugs. In the end it was their choice not his to kill them.

I think it’s terribly convenient to be able to say I left the window open because of my genetic make-up….does that change the fact that I left the window open? no.

And if my genetic make-up is such that I can not make a decision and stand by it, I should not be in a position to make a decision, but rather supervised and have someone who can be held responsible make the decisions for me.

@wildflower: I don’t think anyone is suggesting that actions are completely due to genes, but I think you will have to concede that genes are an element. Right?

I believe the places we (people, not necessarily you and I) disagree on this question are the spaces between genes, environment, and action. Certainly genes and experiences are both implicated in how we make our decisions. In your opinion, what else is?

I agree they are an element in shaping your biases in decision making, yes. But they can not relieve you of responsibility.

Maybe it’s just me, but I differentiate between making a decision or taking an action and why I make that decision or take that action. And I’m not discussing the why’s, but rather saying that I believe I am responsible for the consequences of any decisions or actions left to me.

My biases may be based on whether I’m a predominantly logical or creative thinker, my IQ, my education, my upbringing/teaching, influences from family, friends, colleagues, aspirational figures, media….....there’s probably loads more. But this is only relevant if you’re doing root cause analysis, not if you’re looking to trace the cause of a particular decision or action and who was the owner of it.

Example: lets say I do an interview tomorrow and am asked to make a decision on whether or not to hire this person. I am responsible for that person getting a job or not. It’s not going to be relevant to HR or the candidate how I was raised or what genes I’ve inherited from my parents. It’s my decision and I’m responsible for making it.

@wildflower: So what are things that influence your decisions that are not genetic or products of your past experiences?

E.g., your hypothetical interview: your ability to judge this person’s fit will be a product of your own training (past experiences), your values (genes and experience), your ability to predict his/her future behavior (genes and experience), etc. What are things that will influence your decision that are not products of your genes and experience?

What is the difference between “root cause analysis” and “the cause of a particular decision or action”?

That’s again getting in to the why of the decision.

If I decide to not offer the job in this situation and the candidate asks who’s responsible for them not getting this job, I can’t say my parents/teachers/colleagues…..that would just be ridiculous.

Of course, if the candidate then follows up by asking for feedback – and the reasons why they didn’t get the job, then I most certainly will draw on past training and experience to measure up against the interview performance and give feedback based on that.

I don’t think anyone would contest that people make decisions. The interesting (in my opinion) question is how we arrive at those decisions.

But do the reasons why you do what you do take away from your ownership of your actions?
I don’t think they do. You own your actions and are responsible for them.

If I kill someone out of self-defense, is that the same as killing someone because I hated her shoes?

The other person is still dead from your doing. What consequences you should face should be different because of the different circumstances (what I mentioned in my first response)

Also, chances are the self-defense wasn’t a decision to kill so much as a decision to fight off, but you unintentionally ended up killing the person.

Exactly! The end result is the same, yet the person responsible would face two different penalties—because we as a society have agreed that one reason for making a decision (killing someone out of self-defense) is acceptable, whereas making the same decision for a different reason (killing someone out of shoe-hatred) is not acceptable.

But that’s getting in to consequence. You are still responsible for that person being dead even though you don’t get the same punishment.

That’s where I was going with my first post to this thread in which I tried to distinguish between two different meanings of “responsible”. Are you taking the position that “responsible” means “caused to happen” or are you taking the position that “responsible” means “should be held accountable for”?

Primarily the responsible=caused to happen – I pointed out in my first point that I believe the consequences or accountability should vary depending on the situation, such as self-defense leads to more lenient punishment or none at all and a 3 year old won’t be punished directly for causing a major traffic accident.

I pretty much separate: reason/bias/intent – decision/action – consequence/lesson and I take this question to go on the decision/action part.

The reason I brought the different definitions up is because I don’t think that first definition (“caused to happen”) is a matter of much contention. Substituting back into the original question and rearranging a bit for clarity, it would basically say:

“What do you think of this statement? You are always 100% the cause of what you have done.”

Even then, people could debate the 100% element (what if someone rear-ends me and forces me to rear-end the person in front of me? what constitutes “you” anyway?), or we could get into some quantum mechanics Shrodingery, but it would be a very different conversation. It seems to me this thread has been primarily about what influences the decisions you make and whether you should be held accountable for those decisions.

That’s a very fair point. Where I’m coming from is; I come across people all the time that won’t face up to what they’ve caused, excusing themselves with everything from not knowing any better to that’s how it’s always been done to they’ve been told it should be done that way. And when people say ‘I don’t have free will’ to me suggests they have no intention of owning up to their actions and I find that unacceptable and irresponsible.

I’ve made bad decisions, probably because of lack of knowledge, fears or personal shortcomings, but I still am responsible for those decisions. It was up to me to do it and I did it. I can justify it to myself which helps me sleep at night, but whatever I caused, I still own and anyone looking to pinpoint blame can point to me.

We all probably agree that people should be penalized for actions that society has deemed unacceptable (murder, raping, saying “yes you do look fat in that”), so let’s for a moment step away from the issue of punishment/consequence (we can certainly come back to it).

What I am really hoping to find out is: Do you think anything other than genes and past experiences contribute to the decisions people make? If so, what?

It’s not always a case of being penalized and it doesn’t have to be criminal action. Sometimes you just want to know who was the bright spark that decided to extend the opening hours at work or increase the price of the coffee in the vending machine.

But to your question: Absolutely. I think the balance of fear and desire will always play a very big part. Especially if you’re faced with a ‘appeal-avoid’ choice. Do you fear one option more or less than you desire the other?

Public opinion, media, how we want to be perceived (image/trend), people we want to mimic, expectations…...that’s what I can think of right now, but I’m sure there’s more. We do absorb a lot of impressions and they all affect us to varying degrees and I’m sure affect our decision making.

Aren’t fears and desires a combination of genes and past experience? Aren’t public opinion, media, role models, etc. all experiences that we have? That is, public opinion is meaningless if we’ve never been exposed to it—once we are, it’s part of our collection of experiences and therefore likely to influence our behavior. Same goes for the rest of the stuff you mentioned. No?

For the most part, yes, you could lump them together that way. Although fear could be of the unknown, so you’d have to put it down to ‘past experience or lack thereof’. Also, I think, there’s a difference in the ‘past experience’ you get first hand, from a text book, second hand from a friend or watching an interview with your idol.

Then again, expectations, if someone tells you here’s what I expect you to do – can you call that an experience?

Sure, there are different kinds of experiences and they’ll have different weights on your decisions. And yes, I would call someone’s expectation an experience. For instance, if my boss expects me to make him coffee every day, I won’t have any clue unless I have the experience of him telling me that.

But beyond genes/experience, what else contributes to how you make decisions?

Everything we do is either genetic in origin or a result of outside influence. It can’t be any other way. I’m not a Christian but in essence, the Lutherans have it right. Everything has to be predetermined. Things were set in motion with the big bang, and except when things have a 50–50 chance of occuring, they can only go one way. If it’s 50–50 then quantum mechanics come into play.

Me personally? I suppose anything I can think of can somehow be lumped in with those categories. Whether it’s researching similar situations and judging the probability of every possible outcome – or asking someone I consider an expert…....it’ll all be a combination of what ‘comes naturally’ and a judgement based on mine or someone else’s experience, expectation or agreed rules (which is probably also a type of experience).

I’m sorry AstroChuck, but I associate that particular opinion/mindset with complete lack of responsibility. That’s like me saying, why even try, it’ll all turn out the same.

@wildflower: I think there’s a pretty big logical jump from “things can only happen one way” and “why should I even try”. I don’t see how one necessarily leads to the other.

Although, I do have to ask—if you agree that all decisions are the consequence of genes and experience, then how would you expect someone with (sorry for being so simplistic) bad genes and bad experiences to make good decisions?

I don’t mean to suggest that these people should be exempt from punishment—as perhaps by the right combination of training and penalty we could encourage good behavior in the future—but I do think it’s not so nice to judge these people.

So here’s a question, if it can only go one way, why should I take time to consider the options?

Bad experiences can also teach you what not to do. My father’s an alcoholic, that doesn’t mean I’m gonna drink until I have a serious health scare.

And, I believe we also have to own bad decisions, even when they’re made to the best of our abilities.

Because the fact that life can only take one path (barring multiple universes, sudden reversals of the forward motion of time, etc) means that you are going to use all of your available data to make a decision and arrive at the best one for you and those around you. That’s how you make decisions now, no? And that’s how you’ll continue to make decisions until you’re not able to make them anymore. I guess that’s how our mental machinery works.

And again I apologize for being lazy and reverting to using “bad” and “good”—those are not really the adjectives I was looking for. I didn’t mean to suggest that experiencing unpleasant things forces you to be unpleasant; I was looking for a shorthand way to suggest that people who make decisions with negative consequences for themselves or others may not have had the capacity to consider any alternative as a consequence of their genes/experiences. Sorry for not bothering to spell it out properly the first time. And I agree people like this optimally should own up to their behavior and they should (depending on the circumstances) be penalized. But I also think the rest of us should avoid condemning them as “bad people” and recognize that every human being has inherent worth and dignity and is probably doing the very best s/he can.

If all the choices I am going to make are already clear, why are there alternatives that make them choices to begin with. Why aren’t we just drones following a pre-determined pattern? It’s all just a futile exercise in thinking?

As for the poor judgement, this is again the consequence part where I absolutely believe circumstances should be considered. But the person who made the decision should still say “yes, I voluntarily held the clerk at gunpoint” rather than “I couldn’t do anything else. It’s not my fault” (as an example)

and on that note I’m going to bed

@wildflower- I don’t think it’s like that at all. Of course I’m going to choose what I feel is the correct path. My argument is that ultimately that choice is predestined because of who I am. If I go one way then one result will occur. If I pick a differnt path then there is a different result. But what makes me choose one path over the other? My choice is based on who I am and who I am is a result of things that I have no control over. If I really have free choice then all possible outcomes exist and infinate realities. That may well be the case but that just means that every choice is made, ergo no choice. I know that this sounds arrogant but I have to be right.

“Charles Manson comes to mind. He did not kill anybody he just told those people to
kill them I don’t think he is any more responsable for those people committing murder than heavy metal is for kids doing drugs. In the end it was their choice not his to kill them”.

(Above by OP) If this is the case, then, following the same logic, Hilter was not responsible for any of his orders either. Take a walk through the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and see if you have the same opinion.

Hitler was evil. Hitler was insane. Hitler felt he was right. Any or all of these statement could be correct. Still, he was a product of his genetics and upbringing, things he had no control over. You have to ask why he did such horrific things.
Gandhi was a benevelant man. Gandhi was wise. Gandhi believed he was right. All true. He was a product of genetics and outside influence. He, too, had no control of who he was and ultimately the actions he took.

And if you think I am somehow condoning Hitler, you’ve missed the point. I am definately not!

…so neither of the above were responsible for what they did, good or evil?

What determines the choices that you make?

@AstroChuck
If there is no choice, why pretend to make a choice? What’s the point?

@astrochuck – you asked “what determines the choices that you make?”

a person makes decisions according to what they have learned and what they think is “right”. if even if that decision is “wrong” because they were told it was “right” by someone else, the responsibility lies on the decision maker to do what he/she feels is “right”.

If you say, “well, Joe Schmo told me that punching you in the face was the right thing to do, he should be responsible,” then you’re just pushing the blame. Sure, if it hadn’t been for Joe, you might not have punched the guy. In the end, you are responsible for doing what you believe is “right”. So, again, my answer to the original question is, yes, you are 100% responsible for everything you do.

I agree 100% with ccatron – and you can hold me responsible for that!

I never said not to make decisions or to give up. Where do you get that from my comments? Of course you do what you think is right. But what determines your actions? Your decisions are based on your genetic makeup and outside influences (rearing, peers, etc.) and that those things are out of your control. We are all victims of genetics and our surroundings. What else is there? That doesn’t mean you say “what’s the point?” The bottom line is that no one person is better than another.

I get it from your statement that things can only turn out one way. Therefore there is only one option, the other option must be an illusion and it doesn’t really matter what choice I think I have, because I don’t really have one and I can say or do whatever I want, it’ll still turn out the one way….

Of course, I don’t believe any of my options are illusions. I believe they’re very real and I can choose one or the other. Whichever I choose, will impact what options I will have to choose from next, and whichever I choose there, determines what options come next, etc.
And actually, as well as programming of genes and thought patterns, I believe mood and recent events will sway my bias in a decision making situation too. If I walk home from work and am jumped by a barking mad chihuahua that I want to kick like a football and am then asked if we should have a BBQ party this w/e when I get home, I’m likely to choose the ‘no’ option. Now, replace the chihuahua with a friendly smiling child offering me a flower they just picked and my choice to that same question when I get home is likely to be ‘yes’
Are you saying that it’s pre-destined what chain of events will lead up to the decisions I will have to make and therefore I can only reasonably be expected to choose one particular option? I just think the world is a bit too random for that to be true.