Philosophy Now Forum

If the government is legitimately working on your behalf, you have a responsibility to follow it, by whatever standard. If you do not feel the government is working on your behalf but that there is no viable better alternative then you have a duty to follow it. If the government cannot meet reasonable standards of legitimacy, which include working for all citizens, you cannot have a responsibility to follow it.

This is the fundamental social contract. All social relationships rest on the same foundation - reciprocity. All contracts rest on the same foundation. If the social contract is not both explicit and intentionally chosen it is not an agreement in an ethically meaningful sense. It must provide equal benefit but recognize that the power of the state comes from and is for the use of individual persons.

Equal benefit, then, can only mean equality of sufficiency, or special interest would rule. No modern state is legitimate because no modern state (as far as i'm aware) upholds reciprocity or is non-"arbitrary and capricious" in its social contract.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:16 pm If the government is legitimately working on your behalf, you have a responsibility to follow it, by whatever standard. If you do not feel the government is working on your behalf but that there is no viable better alternative then you have a duty to follow it. If the government cannot meet reasonable standards of legitimacy, which include working for all citizens, you cannot have a responsibility to follow it.

This is the fundamental social contract. All social relationships rest on the same foundation - reciprocity. All contracts rest on the same foundation. If the social contract is not both explicit and intentionally chosen it is not an agreement in an ethically meaningful sense. It must provide equal benefit but recognize that the power of the state comes from and is for the use of individual persons.

Equal benefit, then, can only mean equality of sufficiency, or special interest would rule. No modern state is legitimate because no modern state (as far as i'm aware) upholds reciprocity or is non-"arbitrary and capricious" in its social contract.

False dichotomy: duty and responsibility are synonymous. If you want to make a distinction between synonyms, you’ll have to explain what the difference is to your way of thinking.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:57 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:16 pm If the government is legitimately working on your behalf, you have a responsibility to follow it, by whatever standard. If you do not feel the government is working on your behalf but that there is no viable better alternative then you have a duty to follow it. If the government cannot meet reasonable standards of legitimacy, which include working for all citizens, you cannot have a responsibility to follow it.

This is the fundamental social contract. All social relationships rest on the same foundation - reciprocity. All contracts rest on the same foundation. If the social contract is not both explicit and intentionally chosen it is not an agreement in an ethically meaningful sense. It must provide equal benefit but recognize that the power of the state comes from and is for the use of individual persons.

Equal benefit, then, can only mean equality of sufficiency, or special interest would rule. No modern state is legitimate because no modern state (as far as i'm aware) upholds reciprocity or is non-"arbitrary and capricious" in its social contract.

False dichotomy: duty and responsibility are synonymous. If you want to make a distinction between synonyms, you’ll have to explain what the difference is to your way of thinking.

To do so was, in fact, the entire point of this post. Obviously there's a communication problem. Let me see if i can restate it better..

Duty is an abdication of morality to some larger set of principles and does not entail whether or not you are actually responsible. You can be granted a duty which you cannot actually fulfill, even if both parties know so. If you do your best to fulfill it, you'll have carried out your duty "for all intents and purposes".

Responsibility must be constrained to what you have reason to believe you can actually control. You can't be given a responsibility like you can be given a duty - without regard for whether it's actually possible. Duty can be meaningful in any official context but responsibility is only possible in the context of actual freedom and power.

You can be given or accept a duty which merely means to act as though you're responsible according to the rules of the people who are Actually responsible because they set the rules by which you're conducting yourself. It's possible to have duty And responsibility but it's also possible to have responsibility without duty (i choose to want to help people so i am responsible to my own self-worth but i have no duty to fulfill relative to anyone else). or duty without responsibility (i take on a position as a double-agent so i have a duty to fulfill my oath to the constitution, but no responsibility because that's not where my true motives lie.

Maybe that doesn't clear up what i mean but it should be clear enough that they're not inherently linked.

Thanks.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:13 amThanks.

No no no, that's not how this works. I could be wrong. You're supposed to point out any weaknesses in my argument so i can strengthen them, or how my use of the word doesn't match how or is typically used in situation x or something... :p

I don't think i made my case we'll enough for anyone to just accept it as is.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:49 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:13 amThanks.

No no no, that's not how this works. I could be wrong. You're supposed to point out any weaknesses in my argument so i can strengthen them, or how my use of the word doesn't match how or is typically used in situation x or something... :p

I don't think i made my case we'll enough for anyone to just accept it as is.

Actually, I had a few other short and somewhat ambiguous responses in mind initially:

That’s better.
I see.
Got it.
and my shortest and mildly cryptic one: OK.

Seriously, I accept that you see a difference between responsibility and duty. You explained very well how you see that distinction.

In other words, I accept that you are being sincere in what you’re saying. I accept that you believe that things are the way you see them.

And your explanation aids communication in that I understand what you mean when you use these words.

But do I think that responsibility is a welcomed thing and duty is a forced obligation? No.

I understand your usage and will try to use those words as I think you would use them.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:33 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:49 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:13 amThanks.

No no no, that's not how this works. I could be wrong. You're supposed to point out any weaknesses in my argument so i can strengthen them, or how my use of the word doesn't match how or is typically used in situation x or something... :p

I don't think i made my case we'll enough for anyone to just accept it as is.

Actually, I had a few other short and somewhat ambiguous responses in mind initially:

That’s better.
I see.
Got it.
and my shortest and mildly cryptic one: OK.

Seriously, I accept that you see a difference between responsibility and duty. You explained very well how you see that distinction.

In other words, I accept that you are being sincere in what you’re saying. I accept that you believe that things are the way you see them.

And your explanation aids communication in that I understand what you mean when you use these words.

But do I think that responsibility is a welcomed thing and duty is a forced obligation? No.

I understand your usage and will try to use those words as I think you would use them.

I was going more for duty as a technical/professional obligation and responsibility as a moral one, but i couldn't think of how to say it until i disagreed with you. I do understand that in the vernacular they're synonymous. My point is that for philosophical purposes it's a difference that can make a difference.

I agree, I think but am not sure.

Duty, according to Wordsworth as poet laureate, is "stern daughter of the voice of God". A pity ; the younger Wordsworth was more liberal, unless perhaps W was taking a sarcastic pot shot at the official 'God'.

'Responsibility ' is usually a reference to the subject's voluntary choice whereas 'duty' usually refers to quid pro quo without affection.

>"stern daughter of the voice of God"

Yup, that's a perfect example of a non-philosopher mucking up the philosophical world by not using language effectively. "Precision of thought, word, and deed, was one of my first personal maxims, long before i started thinking of myself as a philosopher.

>'Responsibility ' is usually a reference to the subject's voluntary choice whereas 'duty' usually refers to quid pro quo without affection.

That sounds both practical and compatible with my version. Was there a particular someone who developed that particular formula?

never heard of Howdy Responsibility...

what time is it?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:46 pm never heard of Howdy Responsibility...

what time is it?

-Imp

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:48 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:46 pm never heard of Howdy Responsibility...

what time is it?

-Imp

Took a while. Never saw it. Youtube time. ..oh, it's radio.