Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: responsibility, sensitivity, the usual stuff Message-ID: <2338@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 11:42:12 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2338 Posted: Wed Dec 25 11:42:12 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 26-Dec-85 04:12:39 EST Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 96 [This is from something I posted about a month ago to net.philosophy, where strangely enough parallel discussions on "responsibility" are often going on. Someone had asked about life in prison, where if life in general is analogized to life in prison, with the "prisoner" unable to have any control over (let's say) the food he/she gets to eat, the question arises as to whether the person can be called "responsible" for what he/she gets to eat. My response follows.] Thank you for accurately describing the way responsibility is imposed on people for things they have no control over. Obviously it is ridiculous to say that these people are responsible for the food they get, yet similar things are done in real life. Allow me to extend your analogy further. Suppose in each cell, hidden somewhere completely out of sight, is a button which opens a door through which one may order the food one wants and receive it. Suppose further that it is reasonably out of view, and that you certainly have no reason to expect such a thing in a prison cell (from what you have learned about the nature of prison cells). Suppose further that the regular prison food really is at least as miserable as you sort of imply it might be. Are those who do not press this button "responsible" for the food they get? Further, let us suppose that through various channels it is possible to learn about the button, how it is hidden in the cell, etc. Are these same people (who don't know about the button) now suddenly responsible? (Now ask yourself about a person who knows about the button, but is unwilling to make the effort to find the button (perhaps its location is altered regularly), and thus gets regular prison food. I think that's another story, don't you?) I hope other "responsibilitarians" read this analogy and comment on it. ------------------------------------------------ Interestingly enough, no one did. It seems that some major points are being overlooked: 1) Yes, you CAN control the way you react to situations that "trouble" you, where the reactions have as their root causes irrational presumptions and beliefs (like "it would be awful if this thing happened to me, my life would be shattered"). 2) No, you are NOT responsible for "other people's feelings" (i.e., worrying about their reaction to your acts and the "effect" it may have on them), *except* a> where you are engaging in communication with this other person (since the purpose of communication is to convey a message properly---if your message is interpreted the wrong way, it's as much the sender's "fault" as it is the receiver's), and b> where showing blatant disregard for the other person's feelings is liable to lose you their friendship/love (if indeed you care about that/them enough). It seems that and account for quite a lot of the bulk of interactions, though. A good example of where you aren't responsible for someone else's feelings is when your parents would be "upset" if you married someone from another religion/ethnic group/ species and you happen to want to marry someone like that. But that's mainly because aren't showing much courtesy toward YOUR feelings if they get "upset" by your personal choices, so you're certainly not obliged to change your actions so as not to upset them. On the other hand, a BAD example of the same thing is changing your plans without bothering to tell the friend you had made the plans with, citing your non-responsibility for his/her feelings. Unfortunately, it seems that the people taken advantage of in such cases haven't gone through the same wondrous weekend therapy clinics that the plan changer went through. One often seems to find such pairings: newly "enlightened" est/lifespring/etc. grads and non-grads (perhaps less secure/assertive, perhaps much like the grads were before...) who get taken advantage of ("hey, if they still want to be my friend, that's their business, like, I'm not responsible, OK?"). I think there should be a law that such people should only associate with like kind. That way when the short end of the stick is well spread around and no friendships remain, the eventual outgrowth is a return to mutual respect for the other person's feelings (imagine that!). 3) The claim that anyone who DOESN'T take charge of the feelings/emotions (as these people have) is "responsible" for their predicament is a total fabrication. Clearly, as shown in the analogy above, you cannot be "responsible" for not knowing what you've been *taught* just the opposite of. It also seems to be a rationalization to eliminate "guilt" feelings: "You mean, *I* was able to be a success, having a fortunate set of circumstances, but some of those other less fortunate people weren't? There must be a reason for that that doesn't have to do with my fortunate status... I know: ANYONE can do what I did! After all, *some* less fortunate people are now successful, so that means *any* of them ('just like me'---quotes most necessary) can do it!" Despite the fact that that's a logical fallacy. I keep hearing that such people are not speaking disdainfully of those who haven't seen their "light", or that they're not "blaming" them (what is responsibility for a negative situation if not BLAME?), but to call a person responsible for having been taught that life is like that prison cell, not knowing that there are ways of taking charge of one's life, sounds awful condescending and disdainful to me. Oh, and by the way, "being in love" is simply adoration/infatuation, while "loving someone" involves putting their real happiness high on the list of things that would make you happy. (I figure this is the next net.singles conversation up for rehash, so I decided to get my two cents in now.) :-) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr