-
Hold up - the current bout of hand wringing is about inferring vicarious responsibility for another's actions against a third party at a later time.
i.e. By (running a red light / slapping a bonnet / wearing lycra / being in primary) now, you are responsible for the aggrieved driver running over a cyclist later on.
NotThamesWater-
By saying that to Dan, you're reponsible now if he says something nasty to Idiot causing him to kick his dog. You bastard.
-
I appreciate what the current debate concerns, but was trying (without the mud-slinging and ad hominem attacks which this topic generally seems to descend into) to look at the underlying issue from a different perspective. Personally, I find it raises an interesting moral issue of the extent to which we are responsible for the effects our actions have on others, even though the agency by which those third parties are affected by our actions is itself morally reprehensible.
I suspect that nothing said on here will make anyone change their point of view, given the levels of entrenchment already apparent, but to my mind the issue is an illustration of a wider philosophical issue about moral agency.
Nick.Earthloop
Brommers
It is a sad fact of life that some people steal bicycles.
Those people are bike thieves.
In those circumstances, is it pandering to bike thieves if I lock up a bike I've borrowed from a friend? Am I entitled to leave it unlocked on the basis that if it gets stolen it's not my fault, but the fault of the bike thief, and I'm not responsible for their actions because their actions are morally reprehensible?
Or am I responsible for the consequences of my action or inaction, because I should take account of the reality of the situation (i.e. that some people are bike thieves) even though I don't condone or approve of their actions?