• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another.

    These are legalistic concepts, not materialistic concepts.

    For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.

    A contract is valid when it is enforced. And any cartel boss will tell you how “illegal” contracts are regularly enforced between criminal organizations.

    Past that, the very subject of crime and enforcement is subjective, as illustrated by the various states of the drug trade, human trafficking, and stolen property. More than one pawn shop has subsisted primarily on fenced goods. The legality of their stock does not appear to inhibit the success of their business.

    Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.

    Ethics has no material basis.

    Workers consent to employment unlike kings.

    This doesn’t mean anything.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Consent and responsibility are descriptive not legal concepts there.

      Opposing coercion is an ethic. Certain material facts logically imply ethics. A brain has finitely many states it can be in. The whole state space is finitely representable. Minds can be mathematically modeled completely in principle. The concept of strong attractors and flows in the space of all possible minds is thus coherent. The transcendent truth about ethics is unknowable, but that doesn’t allow denial of moral realism.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Sure, consent and responsibility can be legal concepts. De facto responsibility, which is the “who did the deed” sense of responsibility, is what can’t be transferred even with consent. Responsibility in this sense is descriptive. Property and contract play no role in determining who is de facto responsible for an action

          The moral claim is that the de facto responsibility should match legal responsibility. This is why contract to transfer legal responsibility is invalid @microblogmemes

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            De facto responsibility, which is the “who did the deed” sense of responsibility, is what can’t be transferred even with consent.

            The process by which de facto responsibility is established is a legal process. The adjudication of blame is a legal decision. Case in point, the current dust up over abortion rights involves states assigning culpability for homicide of a fetus to anyone aiding a pregnant woman in pursuing an abortion.

            Everything about this is a legal issue:

            • The legality of the original act

            • The culpability of individual participants

            • The definition surrounding the concept of “aid”

            • The definition surrounding the concept of “pregnant”

            • The definition surrounding the concept of “abortion”

            Property and contract play no role in determining who is de facto responsible for an action

            Property and contract play a role in determining whether an action is socially permissible.

            The moral claim is that the de facto responsibility should match legal responsibility.

            Morals aren’t objective and the idea of “responsibility” is relative. Parents are considered responsible for the acts of a child, but the legal definition of “parent” and “child” vary by legal jurisdiction. The core concept of “responsibility” is therefore rooted in the legal framework that assigns culpability.

            • J Lou@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              “Responsibility” has different senses. One must be clear which sense is being discussed. Who is legally culpable for an action is what I am talking about with “legal responsibility.” De facto responsibility is a descriptive concept independent of whether there even is a legal system to impute legal responsibility. Property and contract determine the legal consequence of being held culpable. De facto responsibility is about purposeful results of deliberate actions. Morals have an objective part

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                De facto responsibility is a descriptive concept independent of whether there even is a legal system to impute legal responsibility.

                Absent a system to impute legal responsibility, this is an entirely subjective question. In fact, the whole reason we have courts and juries is to answer the question relative to the local norms. That’s why jury selection is such a pivotal part of the trial process.

                Property and contract determine the legal consequence of being held culpable.

                They determine the perceived de facto responsibility from the perspective of an outside observer, as well. Law influences public opinion. A country in which smoking is taboo will treat the harms inflicted by second hand smoke as far more material than one in which it is decriminalized or socially encouraged. Same with getting vaxxed/masking up during a pandemic. Or driving while intoxicated.

                De facto responsibility is about purposeful results of deliberate actions.

                It can just as easily be defined as the neglect of certain actions. But, again, this depends on the social standards of one’s neighbors, which are then commonly enshrined into regional laws.

                • J Lou@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Who is responsible for smoking remains the same. It is just the legal consequences associated with that action that change.

                  The kind of responsibility being discussed when someone neglects their duties is different from what is being discussed when we are talking about de facto responsibility.

                  A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their joint intentional actions. Production is a planned and deliberate process. Workers are de facto responsible

                  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Who is responsible for smoking remains the same.

                    The cigarette manufacturers? The retailers? The smokers themselves? Ad agencies? Nicotine? Workplace anxiety? Who IS responsible?

                    The kind of responsibility being discussed when someone neglects their duties is different from what is being discussed when we are talking about de facto responsibility.

                    It is not, because its not objectively certain where the buck stops.

                    A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their joint intentional actions.

                    A group of people can engage in individually virtuous actions while generating a villainous result. The classic example is the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Six individual shepherds grazing on a hill that can only support five flocks. Each doing an honest day’s work, but collectively destroying each others’ livelihoods.

                    Individuals lack perfect information and cannot be held culpable for unforeseen consequences.