It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
argues that eliminating free will could actually help distribute responsibility for one person's wrongdoing across broad social structures
I believe it takes both parts, really. Bullies shooting up schools is some parts collective, and individual, I'd say. If a person is treated so terribly by peers that they snap, they just short circuit.. Is that really fully something to blame on the individual? I believe in individual accountability with collective responsibility. A person can go to jail due to their actions, being a glitch in the collective program can be harmful, but it's not to say they are one uniquely bad virus in a whole computer system - it's to say, it's quite possible the computer system never made the attempt to accept them as a part of the program. Take Muslims, for instance. Does the world or rather USA encourage peaceful acceptance more, or caution against terrorism more and attempt to deny "that plague"? Not to say we shouldn't be cautious, and alert - but I really do believe intolerance breeds intolerance.
Post-mortem autopsy of his brain revealed a glioblastoma multiforme tumor the size of a walnut, erupting from beneath the thalamus, impacting the hypothalamus, extending into the temporal lobe and compressing the amygdaloid nucleus (Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe, Medical Aspects. Report to Governor, 9/8/66).
But in physical terms, in the shared world of physics, it has no truth. You still die on that cross, you still become frozen meat, you still become crushed or enslaved when faced with a collective force of many. (no matter how blissfully and peacefully you feel as it happens).
While writing this play, he struggled to come up with a word to name the robots, initially settling on ‘laboři’, from the Latin ‘labor’. He discussed this with his brother, Josef, and Josef suggested ‘roboti’, which gave rise to the English ‘robot’. ‘Roboti’ derives from the Old Church Slavanic ‘rabota’, meaning ‘servitude’, which in turn comes from ‘rabu’, meaning ‘slave’.
I've always felt that the belief that all people can/should be 100% personally responsible and self-sufficient to be just as lofty an idealism as the belief that everyone should be taken care of by government or whatever else. I think the answer as with most things lies in the middle ground.
Have you ever seen the documentary about gun crime in America called 'Bowling for Columbine' ? It looks at the reason why there is so much gun crime in America compared to other countries that are allowed guns. It is easy to blame the individual but it does not stop the problem. If a society makes it's people feel safe and happy they will not be violent.
originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
Are you talking about the use of SSRI drugs and this having linkage to what they did, influencing their choice, so mitigating their personal responsibility?
What you are saying has little to do with my point - that your very virtuous individual choice does not help you to stay alive when another makes the (non-virtuous) choice to kill you... Especially when it is a group of individuals, making that choice . Yes, yes, you may die with a wonderful sense of moral superiority to they .... But I guess I am a rather pragmatic person, and see little of value in that.
The most effective way of countering a group of individuals choosing together to kill you is to join forces with individuals who make the same choice as yourself. You can choose together not to kill, and perhaps simply emprison the attacking group, for example. You might be able to, together as a collective.
But all alone? Good luck with that.
I watch a large population here, without having to become wealthy or powerful in terms of social atatus, have the power to keep their government and large corporations from abusing them. It works, quickly. Less than a week.
The individual that tries to over turn or influence such elements all by themselves might be able to have a small effect, over the course of years. Maybe. I doubt it though. I lived with the idea that just through hard work and determination, you can be anything and change the world, and I didn't real evidence of that. I watched as studies showed that your environment impacts your abilities, that genetics does, that we are not all "blank slates", or Tabula Rasa, upon which the individual will can write it's desires and goals.
We need each other. I believe that.
I don't subscribe to the exaggerated power of the individual myth anymore. I don't believe that famous 2% got there alone. As I get older and circulate amongst people of more and more power, one of the most important things they tell me is that networking is the key. It is gathering the help and aid of others along the way, everyday, in each effort. It is knowing how to keep ties to many, to create bonds, and know who to call when.
It's only the powerless who put so much emphasis upon doing things all alone.
originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: Bluesma
There is no group of individuals who are choosing to kill me, if I find out there is, I will go to the police.
Every individual within a society has free will, say you come to me and say you "must join me in killing this person", I will ask why(out of curiosity)? and then say No.
I'm not aware of this myth of power of the individual, who are these famous 2%, and what do you mean?
I'm not powerless and I'm not talking about doing things all alone, I'm talking about responsibility.
First, don't forget we're using an extreme example simply because it makes this illustration simpler. But your answer supports my point - you shall rely upon the police... a collective force, to protect you. So... apparently you do perceive, and benefit from, the power of collective force and responsibility. You are aware then, that your individual power has some rather serious limits when it comes to your well being and survival.
The first assertion is a point of disagreement between us, but to really attack it would lead too far off the topic at hand. Neuropsychology has evolved beyond that - it is terribly evident that our thoughts may determine our emotions and behaviors, but the the thoughts are formed by exterior influences. Your ego may be making choices, but the formation of the ego is sculpted by both biological and environmental factors... so it is actually those that determine our thoughts, behaviors and emotions.
But anyway, if a group of people have decided to join together in their common shared choice of action to kill you (who knows... maybe they think you are a threat to their children, for example).
If you want to live, you need to run to a collective force of equal power.. as you have said you would do.
You referred to them as 0.1% - refer to them, but widen it slightly.
I am referring to the American myth that any individual can do and be anything they like, with strong will and hard work, without relying on others. I am referring to the emphasis upon individual merit and responsibility that goes so far as to refuse any positive qualities to "herd mentality" or collectivism at all.
Well, it is a bit confusing for me. It sounds one minute like you want to encourage individual responsibility and reject collective responsibility,
but then you describe how you depend upon the collective responsibility of the police force, apparently accepting and appreciative of that.
So it seems were more on the same page than it seemed at first - you do see value and benefit of collective force and responsibility I am trying to point at?