Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Phoenix_Wright_Portrait_AA6.png (208KB, 400x600px) Image search:
[Google]
208KB, 400x600px
Liability and Responsibility,
Phylosophy, ethics and law
>two people (A and B) make a gentleman's agreement,
>A is in full control of his mental faculties
>A knows that if he doesn't do what he agreed to, it will cause a damage to B
>A willingly and knowingly disrespects the agreement
>B in the meantime engaged in an action that required A's help to succeed
>B fails, and suffers the consequences
1)
Is A responsible, accountable, liable, or in any way the strict cause of what happened, as he was willingly and knowingly the deciding factor?
If yes, when? (only in law, only in this specific phylosophical current, always, never?)
also
2) is it accetable in a general sense to assume that in our actual society (by which I mean mostly the west, but I suspect this is valid everywhere) the idea of responsibility being tied to negligence or willful misconduit is a valid starting point to discuss if someone is behaving "correctly", in a practical sense?
>>
(is this the right board for this thread?)
>>
>>1539247
>>1539247
Yes, I'd say this is the right place. Law = a part of humanities (that happens to pyramid better than most other fields in the humanities). As for OP...
In the US today, yes, A has likely breached a contract. IIRC different US states have different laws regarding the validity of oral contracts, but the scenario youve given in the OP sounds to me like a contract of some sort. B was harmed by A's actions, so in most US courts A wouldnhave to restore B back to wholeness (and maybe a bit more if punitive damages are involved).
I'm not an ethicist/philosopher so I cant tell you much about the rest of your question.
>>
>>1539282
OP here,
Thank you for your contribution, I agree with this and in general I think this is very objectivable.
Can anyone help with some insight on the other parts, (ethics, sociology, phylosophy)?
I.e. is "responsibility" a valid concept in a broad sense, or one should stop at the more objectivable "cause" ?
Once you know that "responsibility" is a thing, can you ignore it? Is it "legit"?
One might ask, by which standards?
If you have multiple answers depending on standards, then, what would be a good standard if discussing a personal situation in contemporary western europe?
The opposing part stated that "even if the majority recognizes that responsibility is a thing, this is arbitrary and meaningless" and used this to support the idea that no one should be allowed to judge anyone that disrespects an agreement causing damage knowingly for reasons like negligence or willful misconduit.
What would a social scientist think of this?
>>
>>1539371
>The opposing part stated that "even if the majority recognizes that responsibility is a thing, this is arbitrary and meaningless" and used this to support the idea that no one should be allowed to judge anyone that disrespects an agreement causing damage knowingly for reasons like negligence or willful misconduit.
*unless this breaks a law
I forgot this bit
>>
>>1539282
*that happens to pay better
dammit autocorrect
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1