Quote:
No takers. Hmm. 
|
No takers? I was under the impression that I had "taken" up the gauntlet, so to speak. Have taken the chances mentioned … would even go further in some very limited cases, but not for a stranger. I’m definitely not a hero, but quite possibly a fool. Definitely a gambler playing odds when in the middle of bad stuff, and maybe just lucky.
I don’t buy into "continuum of risk". I think each type of risk represents an additional dimension of risk to the act, rather than an increased level of risk.
…. And IMHO, those who do subscribe to "continuum of risk" tend to think in a linear way, rather than considering all dimensions at once. The risk of highest value becomes their focus and they answer accordingly. I think some intuitively recognize "lesser" risks as fitting into a different dimensional set and view them as separate, thus forming opinions of personal responsibility that appear to conflict on the surface.
While I’m in the "alternate dimension" …only masochists should read further
If one considers the interests of society to be in conflict with the interests of the individual, acting selfishly is then in direct opposition to acting for the society and that the morality of an act can be described along a line with selfishness represented as bad and altruism as good….
I consider this approach a fallacy and don’t mind standing much of today’s moral views (which includes personal responsibilities) on their heads. In my view, acting for the benefit of self is separate from acting for the benefit of society, though they do relate to one another. This adds a dimension to the equation of how one should properly act rather than necessarily creating a conflict of interests between self and society. To form the most simplistic graph of their relationship, one would draw an x and y axis in Cartesian coordinates for the interests of each entity. X for self-interest and Y for the societal interest. Each axis has a positive and negative side to represent help or harm, and a point can be plotted to describe an action.
Societal interests, though an society is an entity itself, are only a summation of the interests of each individual (including self) rather than a standard to define good and bad. The good and bad is found in how individuals and entities interact with each other. Due to the multitude of self interests and inevitability of conflict, absolution collapses concerning any action, leaving behind only varying degrees and differing dimensions of guilt.
One can then define one dimension as a culpable offense and another as not, but these definitions are only of value in relation to society … in order to differentiate between maliciousness, negligence, recklessness, involuntary, justifiable, and such. One can also define civil liability and degree of financial exposeure similarly.
The really neat thing is that you can define your own values instead of having society do it for you or take on the values of your chosen religion, as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of others. The separation of powers between levels of govt. and the people make sense in a slightly different way too. Different jobs defined for different entities that operate in different dimensional sets, basically. Far preferable to destroying the individual in favor of the collective, imo.
Oh yeah, the zero point of the coordinate system might still be said to be one of zero guilt. However, according to my personal view of correct operation, there is an obligation to always act to the best of my ability (including weighing risks correctly) to achieve a good result. Therefore, the zero point effectively does not exist unless I am incapacitated, or am unable to find a way to act positively. Essentially, as long as one is able to make a positive difference, he is obligated to act, and mistakes are inevitable. Responsibility is attempting to limit mistakes to the best of your ability. Justice is us trying to convince ourselves that everything is OK because perfection exists only in hope.