It is a common principle of theistic philosophy, that the soul can transcend its past history and rise above circumstances of adversity. In other words despite all encounters of unexpected reversal and calamity, the human being has the capacity to make the right decision. This is also the same principle that social systems of reward and punishment are based on (eg – the legal system)
The alternative view is that personal decision is irrelevant and that we are ultimately controlled by material nature (ie, body, gender, environment, dna etc).
Ascribing fault of reason to something external, in the same manner that one ascribes sickness to a virus, removes the perpetrator from the platform of responsibility. This thread looks at (?hopefully?) how determining the fault of wrong doing to be a material cause undermines our humanity, and what is responsible for such an outlook developing.
Take for example suicide. Suicide is seen as wrong since it involves a false sense of proprietorship, much akin to murder. Murder, like suicide, takes away a person who works in the maintenance/care of others (in either case of murder or suicide, persons associated with the deceased experience grief, etc). However it is not possible to determine suicide as reprehensible unless we also accept that whoever has committed suicide had the ability and opportunity to determine the consequences of their decision. Virusifying the act of suicide is therefore a kind of denial of one's humanity or one’s ability to make free choices.
The virusification of wrongdoing has social implications that reach further than acts of suicide.... as seen by this poignant example of the moral reasoning that follows from the virusification of wrong behavior: (bold emphasis added)
In other words, while the act of abuse is reprehensible, and can act as a factor that can influence our decisions, still the ultimate responsibility of decisions lies with the individual. Notice in this example that he places the responsibility for his own relationship breakdown and criminal activity on someone else. He does not consider himself guilty of wrongdoing but rather sees his own wrongdoing as an external condition instead of as a bad decision.
This same notion of the inherent responsibility of self is voiced by philosopher and mathematician, Roger Penrose
Who has virusified wrongdoing? It is reasonable to say that as a science and profession, psychology has over the last 50 years been responsible?
The alternative view is that personal decision is irrelevant and that we are ultimately controlled by material nature (ie, body, gender, environment, dna etc).
Ascribing fault of reason to something external, in the same manner that one ascribes sickness to a virus, removes the perpetrator from the platform of responsibility. This thread looks at (?hopefully?) how determining the fault of wrong doing to be a material cause undermines our humanity, and what is responsible for such an outlook developing.
Take for example suicide. Suicide is seen as wrong since it involves a false sense of proprietorship, much akin to murder. Murder, like suicide, takes away a person who works in the maintenance/care of others (in either case of murder or suicide, persons associated with the deceased experience grief, etc). However it is not possible to determine suicide as reprehensible unless we also accept that whoever has committed suicide had the ability and opportunity to determine the consequences of their decision. Virusifying the act of suicide is therefore a kind of denial of one's humanity or one’s ability to make free choices.
The virusification of wrongdoing has social implications that reach further than acts of suicide.... as seen by this poignant example of the moral reasoning that follows from the virusification of wrong behavior: (bold emphasis added)
"I suffered years of abuse in boarding school, and I still can't come to terms with what happened. I told my parents about it but they wouldn’t hear. I told others, including prominent authorities, but, again, no one wanted to hear. Friends kept me distant because they didn’t believe me. Now I'm married to a very supportive wife. However between the ages of 16 and 26 ( I am now 34), I attempted suicide, moved house about a dozen times, went to jail, married, got divorced, all to try to find stability, and I still aspire for it."
In other words, while the act of abuse is reprehensible, and can act as a factor that can influence our decisions, still the ultimate responsibility of decisions lies with the individual. Notice in this example that he places the responsibility for his own relationship breakdown and criminal activity on someone else. He does not consider himself guilty of wrongdoing but rather sees his own wrongdoing as an external condition instead of as a bad decision.
This same notion of the inherent responsibility of self is voiced by philosopher and mathematician, Roger Penrose
The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each of us, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"
Who has virusified wrongdoing? It is reasonable to say that as a science and profession, psychology has over the last 50 years been responsible?