The case against personal responsibility

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Personal responsibility comes up frequently in social-issue threads on racism, poverty, guns, lawsuits against tobacco companies, etc. People usually say: "they should take personal responsibility." The implication is that the solution to society's problems is for individuals to change their behavior, rather than for them to expect someone else to impose changes.



We believe fat people don't have self control, poor people are lazy, rich people are hard-working, criminals are evil, the homeless don't like homes, etc. But should we believe this? Is it true? I don't think so.



There's a bias in thinking known as the <a href="http://www.psybox.com/web_dictionary/fundamentatt.htm"; target="_blank">fundamental attribution error</a>. The idea is that we tend to blame the victim rather than their circumstances, and we do so even if they truly, objectively had no control over the situation. It's such a well-documented and pervasive bias that it's called "fundamental." IMO, this personal responsibility line is an example of the FAE.



There are certain incentives built in to our society, and they systematically influence behavior, despite free will and personal responsibility. High-calorie food is cheap and it tastes good; ergo, people get fat and get obesity-related diseases. Smoking is relatively cheap, widely available, and addictive; ergo, people smoke and get smoking-related diseases. Want to change behavior? Change the incentives. Banging our heads about personal responsibility makes us feel superior, but in the end, doesn't change a thing.



I don't believe that people have no control over their lives. Maybe it's 50-50 (50% free will and 50% environmental/cultural/genetic/other), but I think it's probably closer to 1/3 free will. But I get the impression that most people believe that it's 100% personal choice. That's nonsense.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    The point is that you can´t say that it is "some-percentage society and some-percentage the person". It will always be both at the same time.



    Case: Highway violence. More people shoot at each other on US highways than in (yes you guessed it) Denmark. Actually there has been no instance of it here. When John draws his gun and shoots Pete, who should we blame? Society or John or split the sentence? After all there is societies where such things NEVER happens, so John must be a victim of circumstances? No. John must take the whole blame. He is 100% at fault. If not then we create another society where we don´t have to the consequences of our actions. You see, of course we are products of our surroundings but if we know this and build that image into our culture then we will stop being the responsible individuals our current surroundings have made us.¨



    But of course on the second level we have to ask why it is that there are more fat people in US than in Denmark, More people die of lung cancer in Denmark than in US, why more people are killed by hand guns in US aso and do something about it. Its not whether its a 50-50 split but about recognising that we are both 100% products of our enviroment and 100% responsible of our actions. And as we are responsible of our actions we are also responsible of the enviroment we create through our actions that make people do things (like killing, eating, commiting terrorist actions, aso) that they are 100% responsible for. Yes I know this sound like something MiniTruth made up but it is nonetheless IMHO the only conclusion you can draw when reading social theorists of both the individual (the Weber tradition) and collective (Durkheim tradition) types and see the limits in theoris that focus only on one side.



    So a more correct title would be "The case against the case against collective responsibility"
  • Reply 2 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:

    <strong>The point is that you can´t say that it is "some-percentage society and some-percentage the person". It will always be both at the same time.

    ...

    Its not whether its a 50-50 split but about recognising that we are both 100% products of our enviroment and 100% responsible of our actions.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>I don't get you here. How can there be two 100%s? It sounds kinda like someone saying "I put in 110% effort!"



    There is a set of factors that influence behavior, and those factors' influence totals 100%. Just do what the behavioral geneticists do with twin studies - try to explain the variance in behavior. According to that field, for personal characteristics (personality, IQ, political attitudes, aggressiveness, etc.), 50% is due to genetics, 10% to shared environment, and 40% is unexplained.

    [quote]Case: Highway violence. More people shoot at each other on US highways than in (yes you guessed it) Denmark. Actually there has been no instance of it here. When John draws his gun and shoots Pete, who should we blame? Society or John or split the sentence? After all there is societies where such things NEVER happens, so John must be a victim of circumstances? No. John must take the whole blame. He is 100% at fault. If not then we create another society where we don´t have to the consequences of our actions. You see, of course we are products of our surroundings but if we know this and build that image into our culture then we will stop being the responsible individuals our current surroundings have made us.<hr></blockquote>

    I think your example makes my point exactly. The difference in the behaviors is due to the difference in the cultures. If it's 100% personal choice, why are there cultural differences at all?



    But I think you bring up a good point - maybe it is best to live as if we all have 100% personal responsibility for everything. There's a famous study about how rape victims who blame their actions (like wearing provocative clothes or going home with a guy they didn't know) cope better with their victimization. That's strange, because of course they shouldn't be blamed - someone else did this to them. But to act AS IF you have personal responsibility may be the best way to deal with life. More generally, maybe societies are better off if they act as if people have 100% personal responsibility for everything.



    But in the end, it's a false perception, regardless of any benefits.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    actually, i've read quite a bit on the subject. very popular in social psychology classes.



    from what i remember, it was more that when things go well, people attribute it to themselves, and what they've done. when things go poorly, they like to blame circumstance.



    in your mind though, the difference is that if you believe that what you've done is responsable for what has happened to you, you will also believe that if you didn't like the outcome, you can change your behavior to avoid that situation in the future.



    if you believe that you had nothing to do with what happened, you believe that there's nothing that you can do to avoid that situation, and you never know if it will happen again, and you feel helpless.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i agree with Anders completely; we shouldn't blame american society...we should blame denmark. afterall, theres something rotten in the state of denmark.



    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell

    <strong>I don't get you here. How can there be two 100%s? It sounds kinda like someone saying "I put in 110% effort!"</strong><hr></blockquote>



    its not like 110% effort [which i agree is just silly to say]. cuz, like its 100%s of different things. each of us is borne into a society. how i react and how i perceive situations is completely the product of everything that has influenced me in my life [aka: society and what it has thrown at me]. but, regardless of how terrible the hand society deals me, i still play it how i want. its my own option to lie, cheat, steal, be bad, or be good, honest, whatever. i decide my own actions. society may have influenced my actions, but it is not responsible for them; i am. blaming society, to me, seems like a cop-out.



    "Which is society's fault becuase...?"

    -homer jay simpson
  • Reply 5 of 15
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    [offtopic]



    If this is the way we discuss social issues on AO instead of FC then I like it. Looks like the move may be a success IMO.



    [/offtopic]
  • Reply 6 of 15
    AO had much higher quality before FC. When it was split in two it became "What ice cream is your favorite?" (AO) and "You´r all friggin idiots" (FC).



    Its a great move to reintegrate FC into AO. I hope my fear that these kind of threads would be closed prove to be unnessesary.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:

    <strong>AO had much higher quality before FC. When it was split in two it became "What ice cream is your favorite?" (AO) and "You´r all friggin idiots" (FC).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, and just whose fault was it that FC got so inane and nasty? Society, that's who!
  • Reply 8 of 15
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by shetline:

    <strong>



    Yeah, and just whose fault was it that FC got so inane and nasty? Society, that's who! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think it's either a vast right wing conspiracy or it's those damn hippies and their precious environment.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    I totally agree with you.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:

    <strong>actually, i've read quite a bit on the subject. very popular in social psychology classes.



    from what i remember, it was more that when things go well, people attribute it to themselves, and what they've done. when things go poorly, they like to blame circumstance.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's the self-serving bias: taking credit for success and denying responsibility for failures. The fundamental attribution error is a general tendency to blame other people for what happens to them - the difference is a) it's perception of other people, not yourself, and b) it always focuses on making it the person's fault, and doesn't distinguish between success and failure.



    I guess the argument that I'm making is against free will. We have an assumption of free will - that people just have to change the choices they make, and they will be fine. But I just don't think that's realistic.



    Example: We have so much knowledge about how to be healthy, and our attitudes show that we want to be healthy. And yet obesity is skyrocketing in the US worse than ever before in history. Our desire to make the right choices is overwhelmed by our sedentary lifestyle and the ease of obtaining high calorie food. Free will and personal choice just don't have any effect.



    So why are rich people rich and poor people poor? Is it really because the rich people chose to be that way and the poor didn't? I doubt it. I think it's because the rich had advantages and the poor had disadvantages.



    I suppose it's the difference between liberal and conservative views. I think the conservative viewpoint (and I think just the American viewpoint in general) is based on an illusion - this fundamental attribution error, the idea that people simply choose what happens to them, and there are no outside forces influencing what happens.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    There is two types of responsabilities :

    - the individual

    - the collective



    If somebody commit a crime is responsabilitie is full but can be minored a little if the collective responsabilitie is obvious : for example if you don't allow people to eat, you can not totally blame it for stealing food.



    But minoration is not an excuse, and people have to paid for their individual responsabilitie.



    Collective responsabilitie leads to more problems : who is in charge, in case of collective responsabilitie : people in charges ? and why the word collective means everyone at least in a democratia, because our leaders are representatives and not dictators.

    I think the leaders should be responsible of collective responsabilitie if they betray or made error in purpose. Orthes way, sueing them, is like finding scapegoats.



    [ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 15
    imaximax Posts: 43member
    I think this "case against personal responsibility" is a bit flawed. We don't all believe fat people have no self control or poor people are lazy or rich people are hard-working and so forth. I think everyone realizes that outside forces affect us every day. People do have free will. People also can be influenced. Some very easily.



    Let's use the obesity example. Two people, both exposed to the same ads and access to fast food. One chooses to eat it often and becomes obese. The other doesn't and instead works out and eats healthy and doesn't become obese. Your argument assumes the obese person didn't really have free will. They were acted on by some outside forces. Well, what forces acted on the healthy person who chose not to eat fast food? Did they have special advantages that the other didn't?



    Since the political view was brought up this really does show a difference betweent the liberal and conservative attitude. The liberal view says the obese person is a victim. They had no choice but to eat the fast food because of advertising, lower cost, education, etc. Because they are a victim someone else must be to blame. Perhaps the fast food company should pay for their medical needs related to the obesity. Perhaps the government should make obesity a disability regardless of the cause and use tax dollars to care for this person. (In effect the person who chose not to eat fast food and be healthy will be paying taxes to care for the obese person). The conservative view does not ignore the possibility that outside forces may have affected the obese person but also does not feel that the healthy person should be made to shoulder some responsibility for the care of that person. Also, it is not the fast food company's responsibility to care for the person. Nor is it the government's responsibility. So who is left? Gasp! the individual?! How can this be? They are a victim!
  • Reply 13 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by iMax:

    <strong>Your argument assumes the obese person didn't really have free will. They were acted on by some outside forces. Well, what forces acted on the healthy person who chose not to eat fast food? Did they have special advantages that the other didn't?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I do think the difference between the healthy and obese person has to do with advantages and disadvantages that those individuals had. In fact, I strongly believe that it is NOT just simple conscious choice that differentiates those two. I just don't believe that all is equal between the two people, and the fat person says "I think I'll eat a lot" and the healthy person says "I think I'll try to be healthy," and their subsequent behavior is determined by those choices. We as observers may believe that, and they themselves may even believe that, but as I've said I think that's largely an illusion. I think genetics and family upbringing and other factors beyond their conscious choice played a larger role. [quote]The conservative view does not ignore the possibility that outside forces may have affected the obese person but also does not feel that the healthy person should be made to shoulder some responsibility for the care of that person.<hr></blockquote>I'm glad to hear you say (and you also stated earlier in your post) that you do not ignore the possibility that outside forces have an effect, because it seems many people do. Or more accurately, it seems that many people believe that free will can simply override outside forces.



    For example, in the thread about race and academic achievement, the belief seems to be that as long as it's theoretically possible to overcome your situation, you should, and it's your fault if you don't. I think that's unfair. Same with poverty - sure, it's possible to start out poor and become rich, but the circumstances in which you are born overwhelm and decrease that possibility so much that it becomes extremely rare. So I'm left believing that personal choice plays a relatively small role and all the other factors beyond our control play a much larger role.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    imaximax Posts: 43member
    I guess I'm wondering if this is all just observation or if you're offering a solution to this "disparity". Again, I agree that outside factors do play a large role. And I do think its naive to think everyone can overcome their specific situation just because its theoretically possible. However, I also believe that its not the government's (whether liberal, conservative or otherwise) job to make sure that life is fair. I'm cautious here as this could become an extremely long discussion on the role of government and the role of society. If the obese person, or poor person or any "disadvantaged" individual was unfairly targeted or specifically hurt by another's actions then there should be some recourse but if its just a matter of being born in the "wrong" place or being more susceptible (spelling?) to outside influences than another I don't feel it is society's role to bring this person up so that their life is more equal to that of their peers. Some people do have to struggle more. That's life.
Sign In or Register to comment.