Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Thought isn't evil: it's bossy and unresponsive

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Jim and all, You wrote We don t need lots of laws because people are responsible; rather we need lots of laws because people are irresponsible. Jim P.S. With
    Message 1 of 68 , Apr 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim and all,

      You wrote

      We don't need lots of laws because people are responsible; rather we need lots of laws because people are irresponsible.

      Jim

      P.S. With reference to the current title of this thread, I would say that it is the thoughtful person who is responsive to the needs of those around him, and it is the thoughtless person who lacks all sensitivity to the situation who is unresponsive.

      I'd like to make a couple of comments. We have as many laws as we do more because cops, DAs, judges, jailers, etc need the security and opportunity of an expanding police state. Since 1970, the number of people behind bars in the US has gone from about 200,000 to over 2,000,000 while the crime rate for violent crime only went up slightly.Just like the military industrial complex and many other government activities, the police state soon becomes a bit like Frankenstein's monster, and assumes a mind of it's own.

      We use the term thoughtful to describe a considerate person, but I believe many considerate people are if anything more feeling than thought oriented, and pick up more on the other person's feelings than they do the cognitive content.

      Peace,
      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jim
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:52 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Thought isn't evil: it's bossy and unresponsive



      Mary,

      For me, responsibility is in the domain of ethics and not in the domain of the law.

      I am responsible for my actions which can benefit or harm myself, but, more importantly, can benefit or harm others.

      If I drink too much, then drive home and knock down a young mother, I am responsible for her death and for making orphans of her young children. I am accountable to her children for their unhappiness and spoilt lives. This is the case whether or not the society has drink-driving laws.

      Laws have nothing to do with responsibility. In some circumstances, the responsible thing for me to do is to break the law.

      We don't need lots of laws because people are responsible; rather we need lots of laws because people are irresponsible.

      Jim

      P.S. With reference to the current title of this thread, I would say that it is the thoughtful person who is responsive to the needs of those around him, and it is the thoughtless person who lacks all sensitivity to the situation who is unresponsive.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Herman
      Hi Jim, ... Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in the nature of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom was
      Message 68 of 68 , Apr 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jim,

        On 6 April 2010 22:43, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        > Hi Polly,
        >
        > Recall, Irvin wrote this:
        >
        > "Aristotle might emphasize that freedom is the ability to acquire those dispositions necessary for virtue."
        >
        > This account of freedom says nothing about the existence of slaves in a society. So even if Aristotle did mean his account of freedom to apply only to free men and women in a society where slavery existed, I can take Aristotle's account of freedom and say it is a viable definition of freedom, which can justifiably be applied to all human beings here and now.
        >

        Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in "the
        nature" of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom
        was limited to the elite. So your notion of freedom is quite
        different, unless you believe that if Aristotle arrived on the scene
        today that he would not spy anyone who was servile by nature. (He'd
        best get his eyes checked if that was the case).

        Polly




        > Jim
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.