Philosophy Now Forum

I can't be held responsible for.....



.... because it's in my nature.

It depends.

Self control - reward deferment - is a major distinguishing feature of humans. However, the level of self control that individuals have could probably be plotted on a Bell curve, with a majority of "normals" and a minority on the fringes, with either extraordinary or hopeless self control. So the OP statement is no doubt fair, to varying degrees, as regards a minority.

Skip wrote:I can't be held responsible for.....



.... because it's in my nature.

Is this a game?

Skip wrote:I can't be held responsible for.....



.... because it's in my nature.

So, hard-wired in ethical theory. Are some more hard-wired than others to wish, or have the capability, to explore this concept/philosophical topic?

Hardwired or hard-wired, what does it mean?
'In my nature' being the same as 'innate, not learned, reflexive, predisposed' ? Genetic inheritance and not subject to change?

So, the issue is that someone can deny any responsibility for their actions/behaviour - good or bad - because they are who they are through no fault of their own.
Well, yeah, how would that stand up in court. Perhaps it would depend on the jury; their hard-wiredness. Or a hard-nosed judge. Or...or...or...

Most know by now that behaviour can change as a result of other bodily and mental changes. Some outwith our control - trauma, dementia, hormonal imbalance - which might change our basic innate nature, our core sense of self. Other changes can be within our control of self - changes of habit or habitat ( mental or physical). That sometimes depend on accessibility to services/finances; the lack of which can be real obstacles to progress.

So, where does the balance lie when weighing up the amount of responsibility for an action...
What potential or willingness did the individual have to change - how much access to a community of people with moral intelligence; knowledge and understanding. Can our societies be too hard-wired so as not to show flexibility in judgement. Depends on the society.

Skip wrote:I can't be held responsible for.....



.... because it's in my nature.

We are all held responsible because of our nature. But not necessarily justly.

Skip wrote:I can't be held responsible for.....



.... because it's in my nature.

A variation that I’ve heard over the years is: “That’s not me.”

This is usually spoken after the person has performed an action, including speech, that the person thinks (probably rightfully so) is counter to their self-concept.

If “that’s not me,” is a similar statement, and I think it is, empiricism makes “I can’t be held responsible for …” a statement of denial.

Yes, it was meant as a kind of game. Like free-association. I was simply curious whether anyone would fill in the blank.

I've heard the hard-wired, innate, natural, biological, fixed, etc. explanation for jealous rage and infidelity, empathy and xenophobia, dominance and compliance, carnivorous diet and war, faith and nurturing. Now, some behaviours must be innate and some of those must be harder to control than others. But are any considered - by the readers of this thread - uncontrollable?

I can't be held responsible for flinching at loud noises. But I could almost certainly be conditioned to stop doing it - even this late.
Just how plastic is that brain?

"I can't be held responsible for..."

gunnin' down the man who stole my water

"...because it's in my nature."

The knife cuts both ways...Aqualung sez 'I can't help eyein' little girls with bad intent'...I say 'I can't help wantin' to end you as you bend to pick a dog end'.

Skip wrote:I can't be held responsible for flinching at loud noises. But I could almost certainly be conditioned to stop doing it - even this late.
Just how plastic is that brain?

That’s an example from life that I sometimes use in discussion. I started meditation practice as a teen and after a few years I discovered that I had begun to experience sudden noises in a new way, and the body was responding in ways other than flinching.

Skip wrote:Yes, it was meant as a kind of game. Like free-association. I was simply curious whether anyone would fill in the blank.

I've heard the hard-wired, innate, natural, biological, fixed, etc. explanation for jealous rage and infidelity, empathy and xenophobia, dominance and compliance, carnivorous diet and war, faith and nurturing. Now, some behaviours must be innate and some of those must be harder to control than others. But are any considered - by the readers of this thread - uncontrollable?

I can't be held responsible for flinching at loud noises. But I could almost certainly be conditioned to stop doing it - even this late.
Just how plastic is that brain?

How very trivial; playing word association in 'Ethical Theory' !
Ah, OK - melt my brain and I won't be held responsible for snorting.
Now waddya gonna do with that material, huh ?

More trivial than seven thousand four hundred and eight multi-page discussions based on a wrong definition of "atheists"?
Maybe.
But mitigating circumstances, state of mind, ability to distinguish and choose, and diminished responsibility are used as defense in some pretty serious criminal proceedings. Obviously, they're not mentioned in the biggest, gravest, most vastly destructive crimes, because those never come to trial. All the same, humans use "the nature of the beast", "human nature" or just "nature" as an excuse for all kinds of unethical on-goings.

You're tight, though. I should stick to the chit-chat board.

Skip wrote:More trivial than seven thousand four hundred and eight multi-page discussions based on a wrong definition of "atheists"?
Maybe.
But mitigating circumstances, state of mind, ability to distinguish and choose, and diminished responsibility are used as defense in some pretty serious criminal proceedings. Obviously, they're not mentioned in the biggest, gravest, most vastly destructive crimes, because those never come to trial. All the same, humans use "the nature of the beast", "human nature" or just "nature" as an excuse for all kinds of unethical on-goings.

You're tight, though. I should stick to the chit-chat board.

Yeah baby, I'm right tight

You. Counted. 7,4008. Really?
How many seconds ?
How much effort/ patience needed to change inability or unwillingness to read and understand. To mould hard or soft plastic.

You get what you pay for, and you know the rest of that tune.

Walker wrote:You get what you pay for, and you know the rest of that tune.

Justice ?

marjoram_blues wrote:

Walker wrote:You get what you pay for, and you know the rest of that tune.

Justice ?

Are you distracted from the situation?

Actually, what it means is that meditation is a non-intellectual method for enhancing knowledge of thought plasticity.