Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site dsi1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rlgvax!dsi1!jeff
From: jeff@dsi1.UUCP (Jeff Armstrong)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: responsibility, sensitivity, the usual stuff
Message-ID: <439@dsi1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 13:39:18 EST
Article-I.D.: dsi1.439
Posted: Tue Dec 31 13:39:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 04:48:05 EST
References: <2338@pyuxd.UUCP> <438@dsi1.UUCP>
Organization: Dynamic Systems, Inc., Arlington, VA
Lines: 47

>> 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
> 
> If it's "their predicament," then how can they not be responsible for it?
> If someone acts on feelings/emotions, he/she is still responsible for his/her
> actions.  As far as what you've been taught, you become responsible for that
> knowledge the moment you accept it.  Therefore, any actions that you take
> based on something you've been taught are your responsibility because you
> accepted what you've been taught as being the truth.
> 
> Lee

From the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition -

Responsible: .... 3. Being the source or cause of something.  4.  Capable of 
making moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for 
one's behavior.

In this society there are plenty of institutionalized rationales for denying
responsibility.  In the extreme they are represented by the so-called
"twinkie defense" of  Dan White in San Fransisco.  You will recall that
his defense claim that he was not responsible for his actions rested, at
least in part, on the notion that his mental (and therefore presumably
ethical) processes were impaired by an excessive indulgence of sugar -
notably twinkees.  Recently there have been a spate of lawsuits against
hosts/hostesses, tavern owners, bartenders, etc. on the claim that they
are somehow to blame for accidents/injuries involving drunk drivers.
While this serves to fix responsibility in a manner of speaking, it really
only serves the idea that "if you are drunk, you are not really responsible
for your actions".

All of which is to say that a person who demands of himself/herself and
others to take responsibility, even at the level of emotions/feelings, is
actually running counter to current social trends.  However, who amoung
us has not lain awake in the dark of night and weighed the alternatives
of accepting responsibilty and being counted among the "causers" or
denying it and finding ourselves with the "caused".  I think that greater
freedom is found in the first choice.  Assuming that a person's
happiness goes hand-in-glove with their freedom it would seem clear that
the attainment of responsibility for one's emotions, one's "knowledge",
and indeed one's "self" would be well worth the effort.

Jeff Armstrong
...!{seismo,rglvax,prometheus}!dsi1!dsi2!jeff