True Responsibility through negation-
There is a notion that exists of negative responsibility, where I am responsible for actions I could have logically prevented, but is this a real concept? I do not think that someone can have negative responsibility because they have a relationship to both action and intent. If my intent is not a part of my actions then it only exists as something abstract, something that exists only in my mind. Intent therefore, is non-existent beyond the will and mind of the actor. We can observe this by the relationship the intent of our actions plays within the roles that we do. Our intent, therefore, lies as something that we merely think about, not something that is shown in our actions. It is passive not active and, in the process, becomes abstract. This plays a large role in what I am trying to establish here: that our actions may be responsible for what does not happen to us.
So, we exist as actors in a larger world. We go about performing our role within society, but does this impact our actions? If my typical behavior keeps me from doing something that could have led to something else, am I to blame? If my adherence to interaction with strangers cost me a job opportunity, am I to blame for that? A feeling of absence emerges, one is absent from being an actor in the world and is therefore free of the negative and positive side effects of it. This feeling of absence causes the relationship that the individual has to the society around them and to themselves to become problematic, because, they exist as a causal actor as opposed to a truly autonomous being. This feeling of absence in action may cause the individual to regard themselves as existing outside of autonomy because they are only a part of a relationship to their own normalized actions. Meaning the individual is only responsible for the things they do not do or become an actor in as opposed to the things they do and become an actor in. Continuing on with this we can examine the role of responsibility in performance and action.
I am responsible for the actions I do not make in society. As an actor my responsibility lies with how my actions affect me and me alone. So to say that an individual is responsible for being an alcoholic is not the case, because the individual is affected by the outside actions of others as well as the socialized factors that they must deal with. But the person, who does not become an alcoholic, has been able to construct behavior in such a way as to avoid this terrible problem. With my feeling of absence in action I develop a new concept of being responsible, I stop dealing with consequence from my behavior and live with consequences that do not occur. Consequences such as these are developed further when discussing my personal relationship to this concept.
Before I go into my personal relationship to this issue that inspired this article, I would like to make a brief aside on personal relationships when discussing philosophical issues. Personal relationships can enhance philosophy and even make it a better enterprise, but there is a negative corollary to this. For, individuals have many times replaced philosophical thought, reasoning and argument, with personal experience that only serves to make the argument. The best example of this is an individual who has not read a piece but yet seeks to make an argument after a brief discussion of the piece (such as in a classroom or a conference of some sort). Understanding of the piece is substituted by personal experience, which lacks the necessary ability to make a whole argument; it only has enough to situate the argument at that moment and even then can lack the pedigree to situate that. With this relationship I have to this concept I want to use it as an example and a telling example of what real responsibility is, I think it allows me to develop the argument best and create an appropriate explanation regarding this philosophical concept
My actions created this new found examination of personal responsibility. They helped to shape it and make me wonder about the consequences that occurred from it. My experience is as follows: Two weeks ago I left a friend’s apartment and walked by my apartment. I did not socialize too much with my roommates, so I decided against going in as I had other priorities elsewhere. Fifteen minutes after leaving my apartment, three gunmen entered and preceded to hold everyone there hostage and rob the place (one of my roommates was a drug dealer and they preceded to take his supply). This leads to my examination of this concept: Am I responsible for not being involved in this incident? The answer is yes, my own behavior is what created the circumstance that led to my avoiding this unfortunate incident. I do not socialize with my roommates and put my studies first, this personality and personal actions are what led me not going into my apartment and avoiding the incident. I create the responsibility for the things I do not do as opposed to the things I do, which depend on other factors. If I was more accepting to the activities of my roommates, I would have been directly involved. Because my behavior is such that did not socialize with them, I am responsible for avoiding this incident.
Could I be responsible for things that do not occur to me? The answer is yes, my actions and what I choose not to do affect me differently then what I choose to do. I do not even realize this all of the time. There has to be an almost infinite number of extensions that exist from this. What my personal behavior produces allows me to operate in such a way as to avoid almost everything. I become responsible for things I do not even realize occur, these are the things I am responsible for the most. Responsible in such a way that all things that do not occur to me are a part of who I am. My behavior and personality that creates the series of actions that bring about specific actualities are not our reality. What is not done from this behavior and personality exists as who we truly are: a being that exists through what is not done. What we choose not to do is who we truly are. From this we can explore the logical extension our negative actions produce.
Any action has a logical limit to what the actor can do, the actors limitation of options as well as the limitation of what actually can occur. So within my concept the logic of what can occur is extended. The actor becomes responsible for what does not happen and therefore extends the logical options for them in the future. I would have been limited in what could occur for me in the incident mentioned above, but because of my actions the logical limit to this is extended. Because I exist without limits on my responsibility as a being the logic behind it is limitless. This and the other sections do raise one important question.
Can I ever be entirely responsible? With a question such as this we come back to examine what occurs from our decisions. Because I am responsible for the things that do not occur to me, then I can have difficulty figuring out what exact responsibility I have. I do not know (as mentioned above) everything that I avoid doing and the reciprocity that occurs from this, so it is hard to measure responsibility. But what can be measured is the extent of the level of avoidance and therefore, what actions have not been taken. So while it may be hard to determine full responsibility, the level of avoidance can be determined and measured as a form of responsibility.
I would like to conclude with my call for a re-examination of responsibility. We must strive to accept new truths that occur from our actions. That is why I argue, we are only responsible for the actions we do not have. Everything else is something that occurs to us not from us. It is more appropriate to examine our lives as enclosed in a prism, this prism is broken every time we choose to do something and remains closed we do not. What remains on the other side of this prism is not our doing, but the reflections of others and our environment. But our decisions exist as ours and ours alone.
There is a notion that exists of negative responsibility, where I am responsible for actions I could have logically prevented, but is this a real concept? I do not think that someone can have negative responsibility because they have a relationship to both action and intent. If my intent is not a part of my actions then it only exists as something abstract, something that exists only in my mind. Intent therefore, is non-existent beyond the will and mind of the actor. We can observe this by the relationship the intent of our actions plays within the roles that we do. Our intent, therefore, lies as something that we merely think about, not something that is shown in our actions. It is passive not active and, in the process, becomes abstract. This plays a large role in what I am trying to establish here: that our actions may be responsible for what does not happen to us.
So, we exist as actors in a larger world. We go about performing our role within society, but does this impact our actions? If my typical behavior keeps me from doing something that could have led to something else, am I to blame? If my adherence to interaction with strangers cost me a job opportunity, am I to blame for that? A feeling of absence emerges, one is absent from being an actor in the world and is therefore free of the negative and positive side effects of it. This feeling of absence causes the relationship that the individual has to the society around them and to themselves to become problematic, because, they exist as a causal actor as opposed to a truly autonomous being. This feeling of absence in action may cause the individual to regard themselves as existing outside of autonomy because they are only a part of a relationship to their own normalized actions. Meaning the individual is only responsible for the things they do not do or become an actor in as opposed to the things they do and become an actor in. Continuing on with this we can examine the role of responsibility in performance and action.
I am responsible for the actions I do not make in society. As an actor my responsibility lies with how my actions affect me and me alone. So to say that an individual is responsible for being an alcoholic is not the case, because the individual is affected by the outside actions of others as well as the socialized factors that they must deal with. But the person, who does not become an alcoholic, has been able to construct behavior in such a way as to avoid this terrible problem. With my feeling of absence in action I develop a new concept of being responsible, I stop dealing with consequence from my behavior and live with consequences that do not occur. Consequences such as these are developed further when discussing my personal relationship to this concept.
Before I go into my personal relationship to this issue that inspired this article, I would like to make a brief aside on personal relationships when discussing philosophical issues. Personal relationships can enhance philosophy and even make it a better enterprise, but there is a negative corollary to this. For, individuals have many times replaced philosophical thought, reasoning and argument, with personal experience that only serves to make the argument. The best example of this is an individual who has not read a piece but yet seeks to make an argument after a brief discussion of the piece (such as in a classroom or a conference of some sort). Understanding of the piece is substituted by personal experience, which lacks the necessary ability to make a whole argument; it only has enough to situate the argument at that moment and even then can lack the pedigree to situate that. With this relationship I have to this concept I want to use it as an example and a telling example of what real responsibility is, I think it allows me to develop the argument best and create an appropriate explanation regarding this philosophical concept
My actions created this new found examination of personal responsibility. They helped to shape it and make me wonder about the consequences that occurred from it. My experience is as follows: Two weeks ago I left a friend’s apartment and walked by my apartment. I did not socialize too much with my roommates, so I decided against going in as I had other priorities elsewhere. Fifteen minutes after leaving my apartment, three gunmen entered and preceded to hold everyone there hostage and rob the place (one of my roommates was a drug dealer and they preceded to take his supply). This leads to my examination of this concept: Am I responsible for not being involved in this incident? The answer is yes, my own behavior is what created the circumstance that led to my avoiding this unfortunate incident. I do not socialize with my roommates and put my studies first, this personality and personal actions are what led me not going into my apartment and avoiding the incident. I create the responsibility for the things I do not do as opposed to the things I do, which depend on other factors. If I was more accepting to the activities of my roommates, I would have been directly involved. Because my behavior is such that did not socialize with them, I am responsible for avoiding this incident.
Could I be responsible for things that do not occur to me? The answer is yes, my actions and what I choose not to do affect me differently then what I choose to do. I do not even realize this all of the time. There has to be an almost infinite number of extensions that exist from this. What my personal behavior produces allows me to operate in such a way as to avoid almost everything. I become responsible for things I do not even realize occur, these are the things I am responsible for the most. Responsible in such a way that all things that do not occur to me are a part of who I am. My behavior and personality that creates the series of actions that bring about specific actualities are not our reality. What is not done from this behavior and personality exists as who we truly are: a being that exists through what is not done. What we choose not to do is who we truly are. From this we can explore the logical extension our negative actions produce.
Any action has a logical limit to what the actor can do, the actors limitation of options as well as the limitation of what actually can occur. So within my concept the logic of what can occur is extended. The actor becomes responsible for what does not happen and therefore extends the logical options for them in the future. I would have been limited in what could occur for me in the incident mentioned above, but because of my actions the logical limit to this is extended. Because I exist without limits on my responsibility as a being the logic behind it is limitless. This and the other sections do raise one important question.
Can I ever be entirely responsible? With a question such as this we come back to examine what occurs from our decisions. Because I am responsible for the things that do not occur to me, then I can have difficulty figuring out what exact responsibility I have. I do not know (as mentioned above) everything that I avoid doing and the reciprocity that occurs from this, so it is hard to measure responsibility. But what can be measured is the extent of the level of avoidance and therefore, what actions have not been taken. So while it may be hard to determine full responsibility, the level of avoidance can be determined and measured as a form of responsibility.
I would like to conclude with my call for a re-examination of responsibility. We must strive to accept new truths that occur from our actions. That is why I argue, we are only responsible for the actions we do not have. Everything else is something that occurs to us not from us. It is more appropriate to examine our lives as enclosed in a prism, this prism is broken every time we choose to do something and remains closed we do not. What remains on the other side of this prism is not our doing, but the reflections of others and our environment. But our decisions exist as ours and ours alone.
-Mark Brinton
