Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:10, 2 February 2014

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy

Self-reference

Now that we have an entry on "Moral Responsibility", it should probably offer a link to the appropriate Misplaced Pages:... pages covering the responsibility of editors for keeping their facts straight and readers for editing mistakes they find, or at least checking facts if they intend to do anything important with them. The appropriate information would provide a clear object lesson in "moral responsibility" for the reader -- ke4roh 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. --BRIAN0918 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But isn't there a Template:Selfref intended specifically to mark self-reference so that it can be automatically deleted by downstream republishers simply by blanking the template? One potential use of such a template is to disambiguate topics in article namespace to topics in Misplaced Pages: namespace. For example, we could add {{Selfref|{{Dablink|For Misplaced Pages's policy on its editors' moral responsibility, see ].}}}} --Damian Yerrick 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • H*ll, look at the top of the Self-reference article itself. --Damian Yerrick 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Brian0918 keeps deleting the Register article - seems like a legitimate addition to me. Removing it gives the appearance that one is trying to pretend ignorance of the article which obviously prompted the updating of this page (which was first created back in August, I notice). The notation of self-reference is spurious, since the entry for "moral responsibility" is not about the Register.com article per se. Seems to just be encouraging an edit war, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 December 2005.
  • Our article doesn't discuss the Register's article at all. Why should we have an external link to it? --BRIAN0918 20:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Register's article discusses the moral responsibilities of Misplaced Pages users (i.e. technologically anonymised individuals) in providing accurate information; it's a contemporary topic and may be specifically addressed in the entry. Removal of the link, which does directly relate to the Encyclopedia, appears to be obfuscation of a clear connection between the entry and the recent John Seigenthaler Sr. debacle. Incidentally, the Seigenthaler entry does point out the Misplaced Pages controversy, and even has a spin-off entry John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy, which includes multiple links to articles referring to Misplaced Pages; would that be "self-reference"? —LeFlyman 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Seigenthaler article references the controversy. This article does not. This article doesn't discuss Misplaced Pages at all. The link you want in so badly should be in the Seigenthaler article, not in this article. How much more obvious does it have to be?? --BRIAN0918 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I say keep it out. The moral responsibilities of Misplaced Pages users is way too narrow a focus to merit inclusion. Same with the connection to Seigenthaler. There's just not nearly enough relevance outside of self-reference. --64.186.172.227 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It should remain for the reasons given above. You are making an executive decision about the reference, which seems to contravene the thoughts of many authors. Additionally, the reasoning you give above conflicts with your expressed prognosis so far of "self reference." I also agree with LeFlyman - deliberate obfuscation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 December 2005.
  • Clearly, Brian0918 is not interested in accurate representation in this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 December 2005.
    • I'm with Brian0918. This article is about "moral responsibility." The Register attack piece does not provide the reader with any information about this subject; their article is about Misplaced Pages itself. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither your nor Brian's objections address the reasons for including it provided above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.200.185.25 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 December 2005.
• Throwing in my two cents in favor of the Register link. --Peter Farago 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• I do not think the Register link should be there. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news site. The link to the register article doesn't offer any compelling clarification of the topic of moral responsibility. The links in Seignethaler's entry make more sense since that's a part of his record as a public personality now, and that entry is about him. Omnifarious 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm reversing my position on including the link; as the entry's status in reference to The Register has now been well-discussed here on the Talk page, and is understood by communities (such as Slashdot) outside of Misplaced Pages to be an indirect response to The Register's specious article, the link is no longer necessary. The Register's Andrew Orlowski doesn't deserve the attention for his poorly edited anti-Misplaced Pages opinion pieces. —LeFlyman 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As an intelligent individual with a desire to enlighten the masses, I feel that it is my one and only responsibility to convey this truth. Free will and moral responsibility are mere concepts developed by those who have power as a way of controlling others into actions that directly or indirectly benefit them. To assume that morality exists, one must prove the existence of free will or freedom. To assume that any one of us is free, is to assume that we chose to exist prior to our actual existence, created the universe in which we all exist on this physical plane, and created the sense of individuality that exists in all beings that possess self-awareness. If such is true, then "self" is nonexistent based upon the fact that we all simultaneously coexist as each other as well as that which is nonexistent. So, either we are not responsible because we have no recollection of supreme diety abilities, or we are not responsible due to the fact that we are all the same being, in which case, right or wrong are nonexistent.--Prodvocalist 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  That's nonsense. Of course we don't have absolute control over our lives but we do have control over how we react when we encounter a moral dilemma. Of course, past experiences can change the likelihood of an individual acting in a moral or immoral way but this is only true to an extent. If one thinks about doing an action that would be harmful, and realises that he/she has the ability to prevent his/herself from doing that action yet doesn't exercise that ability, he/she has responsibility from that harm caused.

Seen this yet?

I am not sure if this artical was written before or after the artical in the newspaper but the title is still funny.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/

Reallybadtrip 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

Note:this vote is not valid, nonetheless there is no justification of deleting it from the page. When the page gets too long, it can be archived, along with preceding comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - We should leave the article here for no less than a week as a reasoned answer to the Register article. With the revisions I suggested above, I think it's a meritous article, particularly for those who come looking for some understanding about what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. -- ke4roh 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages pages aren't meant to be answers to articles. This page needs to be revised into a quality article about moral responsibility in general, not something specific to wikipedia only. If it's not revised, delete it BillPP 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but this should be merged or redirected. Responsibility already exists. Stop letting Joe Fay's Big Bag of Spurious News dictate the direction of this resource. --Markzero 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - This Misplaced Pages page should be refined into a meaningful page about the idea of "Moral Responsibility". The topic itself is an actual philosphical term. See Moral Responsibility in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gonknet 16:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The entry should be updated and refined so as to comprehensively define the concept of moral responsibility at various points along the moral spectrum (or varying degrees around the moral compass, whichever metaphor suits your fancy). A contrast between legal moral responsibility, religious moral responsibility, golden rule moral responsibility and other types of moral responsibilty, including the differences in various moral responsibilities between cultures and countries. Syukton 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• There's no debate here, folks. The entire text of the article was a copyright violation, and that's not subject to a vote. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I had made my support to keep the article before the copyright violation had occured. This page is likely to get more visitors than the average Misplaced Pages page in the short future. Does the marking of this page as a copyright violation hurt or help the image of Misplaced Pages as a reputable source of information? While the tagging of the page promotes the idea that the information is checked by Misplaced Pages editors, it also promotes the idea that people who use this service are out there to provide misinformation or to cause trouble. I think that this page should be allowed to become meaningful article on the philisophical topic of moral responsibility. -- Gonknet 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages's credibility can not be a consideration when dealing with copyright violations. We have legal obligations to respect copyrights, even if it makes Misplaced Pages look bad in the interim. The ideal solution here is for someone with knowledge of this subject to write a paragraph or two to get an article started after the copyvio is resolved. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not suggesting that the copyright-protected material be placed back here to help Misplaced Pages's image. The copyright infringement notice on this page states: "Please do not edit this page for the moment." How is someone with a knowledge of the subject to get the article started if they are instructed not to do so? (Noted that you just added: after the copyvio is resolved...) -- Gonknet 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, because I was afraid someone would edit over the copyvio notice, and someone did. I have moved the new text to Moral_responsibility/Temp. Anyone can work on it there, and we can move the text over when the copyvio is resolved. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Help, definetly. Anybody visiting this page will see that Wiki respects copyrights, is quick at spotting copyvios (vandalism, bias) - and they can go to the Moral_responsibility/Temp and contribute to the article. I'll go ahead and create a stub so anons can edit it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to responsibility. Michael Hardy 19:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand; there is a definite philosophical concept of "moral responsibilty" which has notable and verifiable term. See, for example: Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Responsibility and Control : A Theory of Moral Responsibility —LeFlyman 20:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove any links to anywhere that offer anything but further unbiased clarification of the topic. God help us if every entry included links to each occasion the term was brought up in discussion. Relation to Misplaced Pages should be moot. I can hardly see Encyclopedia Britannica including footnotes regarding Jane and Sue's morning show simply because said morning show discussed a particular entry. Speaking of discussion, the tab is lit clear as day at the top of this entry. Those wishing to know about that which is being discussed or that which is currently relevant to this entry simply need view the discussion. --Ayeroxor 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the author of the copyrighted content

I have just sent an e-mail to the author of the copyrighted content requesting permission for us to use it as the basis of the moral responsibility article. I have directed him here to this discussion page in order for him to offer his yay/nay on the matter. I hope that he will respond in the affirmative to my request. Syukton 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages can only copy public domain/free content, even if they give us permission. This is due to the mirror sites that copy us. Is it that hard to write in your own words? --BRIAN0918 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is fair use given the small size of the portion of the original text which was copied, given that wikipedia is run by a non-profit organization, and given that the intent of the usage is not to gain commercial benefit. Additionally, the excerpt of the copyrighted work is not intended to serve as a complete end-all be-all for defining moral responsibility, but as a basis for a more refined article. If it is necessary to release the text into the public domain, only the excerpt of the original document which was used here need be released. Syukton 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian is entirely wrong. Misplaced Pages can copy copyrighted content as long as the author releases it under the GFDL. That's the point of the GFDL. --The Cunctator 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I was not wrong. The GFDL is a license for free content, like I said. Read the first sentence of GFDL. --BRIAN0918 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten

I never even looked at the copyvio content. I wrote the new content that is at the subpage and now in the article. There is no more need for the copyvio notice, or to wait 1 week before replacing it with original writing. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-12 18:04

• I understand that you've written new content, but according to the {{copyvio}} text, editors aren't supposed to delete a copyvio notice to insert new text. Please make your edits to Moral responsibility/Temp for the time being, and once the copyvio issue is resolved, that text will move to the main article entry. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• As the subpage is not a copyvio, it has been moved to replace the original copyvio. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-12 18:10

Dear Mr. Orlowski

I thought I might add my two cents to this The Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/) so here is what I am writing to him. On that note, if anyone would like to edit this letter to make it more comprehensible, please do. This isn't meant to be an article, just discussion.

Dear Mr. Orlowski,

I am writing in reference to the article you penned on The Register entitled: “There’s no Misplaced Pages entry for ‘moral responsibility’.” Though, admittedly, much of the article amounts to banal slander acutely reminiscent of that for which you decry, you do make some arguments which I feel the need to refute.

I hope I get this right:

• The users of Misplaced Pages are not responsible for the content they write. Misplaced Pages has a responsibility to present fair and accurate information.
• Misplaced Pages is not a real encyclopedia because a good deal of the information is inaccurate. Instead, Misplaced Pages is a piece of ‘spontaneous graffiti.’ Since anyone can edit Misplaced Pages, it presents a slippery slope to unchecked libel and copyright infringement. If ‘publication’ by an ‘encyclopedia’ means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right.
• ‘Publication’ entails responsibility.
• Misplaced Pages cannot be trusted to present accurate information. It lacks ‘social responsibility.’

I will try to address these in the order I presented them; however, in true Wikipedian fashion I may skip around a bit.

You claim that Misplaced Pages as an organization is in some way responsible for the information contained therein. How? Is eBay responsible for the legitimacy of the items they allow users to purchase? Is Google, then, responsible for the content of everything they index? The Wikimedia Foundation has created a framework for organizing information in the same manner, why are they held to a different standard than Google? Is it not acceptable to leave some things uncensored? As a responsible individual, I feel perfectly capable of making that decision because, as in all interpersonal transactions, caveat emptor (which Misplaced Pages tells me is Latin for ‘let the buyer beware’) applies. Misplaced Pages is a private organization, they have no public responsibility and they claim no public authority. The users who support the Misplaced Pages edit freely and censor freely. If an article lacks neutrality, Misplaced Pages has provided editing mechanisms by which individuals may correct the text to better harmonize or categorize differing perspectives. In the end what wins out is consensus between private individuals from inherently subjective viewpoints on what is and is not objective fact.

Misplaced Pages is a source of libel and copyright infringement. More so than in the real world? Misplaced Pages has stated their policy on copyright infringement (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copyright), they have explained to users how to spot it, and they also actively fight it to the limited degree with which they, as individuals, are able. Libel is another story. Misplaced Pages is a constantly evolving medium, it is not ever strictly ‘published’ hence there is no last word or definitive statement made in any of the articles. This is understood by Misplaced Pages users and is considered a necessary evil in order to attain the dynamism of content that Misplaced Pages is capable of.

What is this dynamism that I speak of you might wonder. Since the articles contained herein are freely editable, what we experience is a mini-internet. The true internet is just as dynamic: one can find breaking details on just about anything desired from the latest hurricane information to circa 1940 John Deere tractors to--you guessed it--libel and copyright infringed materials. Shall we call for the elimination or stricture of the internet? “Welcome to The Internet, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” What makes Misplaced Pages special is that it takes this experience and contains it within one search box and a standardized format all without limiting freedom of expression as most other websites do to some degree (be that due to policy or selectivity). It appears that Misplaced Pages’s advantages present an ideal target for those against freedom of expression since the internet as a whole is a much more elusive target.

Back to the subject. Misplaced Pages is not an ‘encyclopedia,’ it is and has always been a ‘free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around the world.’ There is no subterfuge involved; the users understand this caveat and appreciate it. You do not make a distinction and instead treat your topic as if Misplaced Pages were a true print and bound book. Just as an online message board or USENET group contains questionable content, so too does Misplaced Pages, the most useful online message board I have ever come across. Sometimes this questionable content is exactly what the user seeks! That which the user cannot easily find elsewhere is often contained within these electronic walls.

Now apparently you believe that publication entails responsibility. This invites the question: responsibility to whom? In the free market, book publication occurs when someone has enough money or knows people with enough money to print and distribute the work. I could easily write an ‘encyclopedia’ filled with poorly written argumentation, biased against certain political figures, market it as absolutely, positively true, and sell it at Barnes and Noble—failing that I could buy my own book store and sell it there. Would one not have a right to claim caveat emptor in this situation? And let's back up a moment, why would Barnes and Noble refuse to sell my book? Perhaps due to public outcry, more likely the direct result of loss of overall profit. Misplaced Pages is controlled in this same manner, people can choose to patronize them with donations or they can refrain and eventually the foundation will lose monetary motive force. You claim Misplaced Pages lacks regulation, I argue that Misplaced Pages is regulated by its patrons.

You assert that Misplaced Pages has some sort of responsibility to society. In essence, you conceptually place a private organization--that has made no claim of authority--in the public realm. However, public organizations that actually do make authoritative claims already appear to lack the sort of social responsibility that you insist upon. Take Grand Juries for instance. A prosecutor can indict an individual with very little conclusive evidence and later find that person not guilty. Raymond Donovan, secretary of labor under Reagan, was indicted by a federal grand jury for larceny and fraud and later acquitted. But the public does not see this; instead they read the big bold headlines, “Raymond Donovan under Grand Jury Investigation for Larceny and Fraud.” Is this not libel? Donovan was later quoted as saying “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” and “Who will reimburse my company for the economic jail it has been in for two and a half years” (Quoted in George Lardner Jr., “Bronx Jury Acquits Donovan,” Washington Post, May 26, 1987.) Before you infer that Misplaced Pages is in some way similar to or should be a public utility, let us fix the public utilities we already have.

You state that Misplaced Pages cannot be trusted. You may very well hold that opinion, many others do. I agree with you, I trust Misplaced Pages just as much as I trust the results I find in Google. Google is full of hit or miss statements and Misplaced Pages is no different. In the academic pursuit of knowledge, one examines all avenues and makes up his or her own mind; one cannot ever accept any single source as unmitigated truth. Knowledge often arises from open forum and in that manner Misplaced Pages succeeds.

I am a bit dismayed that your article is so destructive of the topic; you fail to present constructive criticism and instead lash out with highfalutin prose that seems more intended to shock your readership than present suggestions to make Misplaced Pages a better, safer place for factual information. Next time, start an article here, perhaps we can help you with it before it makes the press. ~ Nhandler 23:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nothing is objectively true!" There is always a salient truth, we may simply lack the means to identify it. That quote of your is absolute incorrect. People may have the wrong impression but that does not nullify the truth. Mathematical logic is objectively true, period. It has no basis in culture, bias, or taste.

Thank you, unsigned person, I have corrected my statement to better match your observations. Nhandler

I'm not the original commentor, but I'm still not pleased with that particular section. Everybody does have a right to judge it objectively true or false. That is exactly the sort of careful analysis and critical thinking you tell him that people should excercise when viewing the entries. I think something along the lines of "Since we all only have subjective viewpoints, the best we can hope for in describing some idealized objective viewpoints is a thoughtful merging of our individual subjective viewpoints. We call this consensus.". I'm not recommending you use that text though. It's a bit wordy and difficult to work in with the rest of the paragraph. Just trying to help you clearly think through what you mean to say. Other than that, I think this is fairly well done. (Omnifarious)

Thanks for the comment, I've tried a different take on it. Nhandler 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks good now.  :-) Omnifarious

The Misplaced Pages is not just a web forum or online listing service comparable to eBay or USENET. In both of those, users can post, but not edit the posts of others as they can on the Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages does seek to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. ("Misplaced Pages, the 💕.")

Also, article talk pages are for discussing articles, not responding to critics of the Misplaced Pages. You can use your user space or a 'blog for that, so I won't discuss this further here. Jobarts 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I vote to merge

As do I. This page seems to exist purely to spite the writer of the Register.com article, (honourable though that cause may be) in the true spirit of Misplaced Pages, surely this is fairly superfluous and should as such be merged with responsibility. Cai 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This article was certainly written as a pointed response to the Register article. However, this does not mean that the topic is not worthy of having an entry. We must separate the reason for it's creation from what was created as we think about keep/delete/merge. For an (slightly infamatory and not entirely accurate) example, if the Register article pointed out that we did not have a Misplaced Pages entry for the Enola Gay, would we then argue that such an entry should not be present because it would be added as a response to the Register article? Clearly not: let's evauluate the wiki entry and the topic that it discusses solely on it's own merit. Dxco 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As the merge would be from here to Responsibility, it would be more appropriate to discuss this on the other page. Jobarts 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

biased account of morality

It would be morally responsible to label the topic as 'morale relativity' instead of 'moral responsibility' as what is presented leans more towards that left leaning viewpoint.

Be fair and honest.

Seconded Domenic Denicola 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference link deleted?

Should the only link under the reference section be deleted? It is listed twice... there, and lower in the external links section. Seems redundant.--12.214.39.203 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

Recent examples include accounting scandals, oil spills, defective products, political campaign financing, and other widely-impacting political corruption.

Describing "oil spills and political campaign financing" as things that harm communities is not NPOV. "Illegal political campeign financing" perhaps could be dealt with in an article on "moral responsibility" but political campeign financing in general isn't nessicarily a bad thing. Every politician does it -- it's part of the political process.

Furthermore, whatever evidence one may be able to produce about how oil spills may or may not harm the environment, I find putting that here in this article is paramount to adding the word "abortion" to this sentence - it's just about that POV.

If I'm totally off here in smelling a POV rat, then I just don't understand this laser-sharp focus on white collar crime in this section. Why these types of crimes in particular?

Probably isn't anybody's fault really ... just somebody tried to get an article together real quick to counter that one column ... just somebody try to come up with something to unPOV this please. --Nerd42 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I threw the article together to replace the copyvio that was up. The focus on "white collar" crime is because crimes such as illegal campaign finance and accounting scandals impact large groups of people, as it says in the article.. "widely-impacting". — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-13 02:33

OK adding the word illegal is an improvement, but still: what are oil spills doing in an article on moral responsibility? The two don't seem to go together ... that is unless someone supports an environmental policy regulating oil company practices. That would seem to me to be the only time "moral responsibility" and "oil spills" would be in the same sentence. Thus, POV.

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd just re-edited the page myself ... well on the other hand making a big stink about it on the Talk page is more likely to get my input to stick ... --Nerd42 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I added the "oil spills" comment because another encyclopedia listed it as an example :) I don't think it's that POV. The article is simply saying that certain groups (environmentalists) hold companies morally responsible for their accidents. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-13 02:41

In that case, if the other encyclopedia had the same format and standards as wikipedia, I'd be saying the same thing to it. I think this is a bad example, and if it's going to be there it ought to have an equal number/amount/length of examples of holding groups morally responsible from both sides of politics.

Seems to me the religious right is a flowing fountain of exaples of blaming "moral responsiblity" for things on people --Nerd42 03:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples that have impacted many people? — ₀₉₁₈ • 2005-12-13 03:03

Note that this sentence is based on Internet Encyclopedia of Philisophy reference . Which means that we are now correcting their errors :) That's what I love about Wiki :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I could come up with some examples I guess, but I really think the entire sentence ought to go, or at least be shortened to "Western societies in particular are noted for attributing moral responsibility." and that be the end of it. I'll have to think about this ... how to balance the examples used if there have to be any ... --Nerd42 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishy-washy language

I know it's a new article, but it's full of unverifiable, vague phrases like "the term is often used." Is it? Often, rarely, or just in the author's mind? Stuff like that should be sourced. Otherwise, we're left with a compendium of editors' opinions. Just my view as the article stands right now. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I sourced my original content. Since then, it has been flooded with anonymous expansions and other crap, although some of the additions were quite productive. In a couple days, it would probably be go to clean up the article and source it throughout, but for now its rather pointless, unless we revert all non-productive additions.  BRIAN0918 

This article may be a good canidate for the "weasel words" tag, then. ;-) --James 03:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Chomsky Wikiquotes

• For reference, the link is: Wikiquote:Noam Chomsky#On moral responsibility

A new user, Tcsh, who has up to now exclusively edited only Noam Chomsky-related articles, has persisted in re-inserting a link to quotes by Chomsky. These quotes— which are listed under a heading of "On moral responsibility"— do not deal with the philosophical precepts of this article, nor even mention the term "moral responsibility" at all. I have pointed out that one can just as easily find quotes by any number of persons on the topic of morality and responsibility-- there are, in fact, almost 500 Wikiquotes with "moral" and over 700 for "responsibility". I have also advised the user that if he wished to include some claim as to Chomsky's view on moral responsibility, to do so within the body of the article. So far, the link has been his only contribution to this article, and I would claim is one that is absolutely unneeded here. While Chomsky may have much to say on many things, I don't believe we need to include his quotes everywhere on everything. Otherwise, why not likewise list everyone who's ever said something about "moral responsibility?" As he has not listened to my reasons for removing his link, I leave it to the other editors here to deal with. —LeFlyman 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have listened and responded to all of your reasons on my talk page, but for some reason you're unable to see what I write (most obvious example is that you somehow managed to read "desist in reverting link to Wiki-quote"). The 500 and 700 numbers that you repeat here are meaningless, as there isn't any other Wikiquote article with moral responsibility section or quotes. Datapharmer, which browser are you using? The sublink works fine with everything I've tried. Tcsh 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• A simple search of Wikiquotes reveals (for example):

• One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.—Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
• The precept: Judge not, that ye be not judged ... is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.—Ayn Rand
• I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that an artist has to take some moral responsibility for what he or she is putting out there. And I think a lot of these young kids are going to have to learn the hard way before they realize that you can actually do some damage if you're being careless or frivolous in what you're saying.— Tom Petty
• There is nothing like a naturalistic orientation to dispel all these morbid thoughts of "sin" and "free will" and "moral responsibility."—Raymond Smullyan

And these are just some of the ones available in Wikiquotes that specifically mention "moral responsibility"— which as I've repeatedly noted, none of the Chomsky quotes do. There are countless other quotable sources, as anyone worth his/her salt has had something to say on the subject of morality and responsibility. (To wit, Thomas Jefferson.) Again, not all of them are appropriate to link in this article. —LeFlyman 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the same search, that's why I wrote "quotes" in plural with regard to "any other Wikiquote article". The Chomsky section is obviously about moral responsibility, and is exactly on topic here (your personal opinion notwithstanding, but I don't delete links that you added either). Tcsh 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just his personal opinion. I read the Chomsky quotes, and they don't specifically mention moral responsibility, nor are they even about moral responsibility. And the fact that several other editors have said they don't believe the link belongs should carry some weight. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think that they aren't about moral responsibility, what do you think that they are about? Tcsh 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not an editor, but many of those quotes are about moral responsibility in some form or another. Whether or not the link belongs in the article is another question. But denying it on the grounds that there are many more relevant links that could be included and aren't be isn't wholly accurate as the link is just as relevant as the MLK quote you gave. Omnifarious 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I missed Tcsh's question to me until he pointed it out below. Those Chomsky quotes are not about moral responsibility - they're about his own political views. They're appropriate for an article on Chomsky, but not for this article. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The External links section is not an appropriate place to put the chomsky link. I have no problem with including links to relevant quotes, but the Chomsky quote by itself is not significant enough to include in the external link section. If editors are set on including quotes about moral responibility then I suggest a section on quotes which can contain relevant links including Chomsky, King, etc. Personally I don't see the need for such quotes in this article, but I'm not set against it either. As for the sublink not working before, I am Using firefox 1.5 on Macintosh. The link took my to the page but not the subsection as it should have. Datapharmer 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes the other external links more significant than this link, in your opinion? Tcsh 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The other External links refer to complete writings, entries or articles. As complete works and references I feel they are more pertinent than any single quote out of context. Datapharmer 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

None of those quotes is out of context in a deceitful way, and all of them have online sources, in case you seek further context. Anyway, the question isn't just whether you like this link, but why your opinion should override the opinion of someone who thinks differently, and thus you delete the link. This seems rude to me. Tcsh 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to link to the online sources directly rather than the quotes. That aside, the reason I chose to delete the link was based mostly on the fact it didn't seem to work properly (at least under firefox 1.5 - I could be wrong, but when I clicked on it it didn't go to anything about moral responsibility), and the issues raised by other users about the inclusion of this quote. I apologize if I came off as rude by removing it, but it seemed that it was included under a great deal of controversy, and at the time the discussion and history of the article led me to conclude it should be deleted. If I was mistaken, I again apologize. I am not going to pursue it as something that absolutely cannot be in the article; if others think it is appropriate and adds depth to the article that is fine. As for the quotes being deceitful, I never claimed this. What I am claiming is that their use of "moral responsibility" is basically out of context. Yes, it contains those words. Do I personally think a qupte should be an external link because it has those words in it? no, i do not. Again, I would find a section dedicated to quotes about moral responsibility much more appropriate, but i am but one small editor of a very large encyclopedia.... other editors may do as they may. Datapharmer 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried the link in firefox under ubuntu, ie5 under win2000, ie7 beta, and it worked fine for me. If someone else with firefox also fails to get to the section when clicking on the link, let us know here? I disagree with you that it'd be more appropriate to link to the online sources directly rather than the quotes. I went through all the sources, and in some there isn't anything else related at all, like the c-span source, which is 3 hours, and the transcribed quote fully contains the question+answer, and there's nothing else in the entire broadcast. Other quotes also capture the relevant part in a complete way, I think, but if someone wants more context, he can click on the source. That's what I meant with regard to not being out of context in a deceitful way. However, I do agree with you that a section with a collection of quotes from different people can be much better, perhaps in wikiquote itself, and just the template link here. But while there isn't such a section, I think that it's good to have this link in the external links. I'll try to restore it, and see whether Keithlaw or others wish to respond further. Tcsh 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You still have no legitimate reason to include a link to Noam Chomsky quotes here, apart from your apparent fandom of his work. It remains inappropriate for you to continue reinserting the link here; no other editor has come out in support of their inclusion. If you find this "rude" then I suspect you'll find much of Misplaced Pages to be so. Not so long ago, co-founder of Misplaced Pages Jimbo Wales wrote in the Noam Chomsky article discussion, "I personally regard Chomsky as a kook and a half on toast." Now that might be construed as rude. —LeFlyman 09:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate to insert this link? Because Jimbo Wales thinks that Noam Chomsky is insane? Or you mentioned that just to demonstrate that you are not as rude as Jimbo Wales is? And why did you change your mind about leaving it "to the other editors here to deal with", as you said above? Tcsh 09:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please spend some time re-reading the extensive discussions above, rather than repeating the same circular questions ad infinitum. It is inappropriate because you have not provided a single valid reason for the inclusion of a link to Chomsky, other than because you think it belongs here. And it's inappropriate because you're clearly choosing to ignore the statements of other editors who have likewise said the link does not belong here. There is no basis for arbitrarily choosing to point to a certain individual's quotes, other than to push your particular point of view-- which is specifically contrary to Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV Policy. If you feel so strongly that inclusion of Noam Chomsky is relevant here, write a clear paragraph or two in the body of the article about Chomsky's views on moral responsibility, but be prepared to have it edited, as well. That's how WP works.—LeFlyman 10:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the content of the other links be in the body of the article, instead of being pushed in the external links section? Are you objective? And why did you change your mind about leaving it "to the other editors here to deal with", as you said above? Tcsh 11:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC) I should also say that one reason why I re-added the link in the article was to see whether the other editors have more to say about it, because I assumed that your words above ("I leave it to the other editors here to deal with") were meaningful. But within less than 5 minutes after I added it, you returned to your crusade to censor the link, and delete it. Tcsh 13:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might also put aside a bit more time reviewing Chomsky's texts on linguistics and semantics rather than focusing on his particular political views. To reiterated for the Nth time: the current External Links list sites which specifically address "moral responsibility" as a concept in philosophy and religion. They are extensive reference points from neutral sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The list of random quotes by Noam Chomsky— which have been arbitrarily placed under a heading of "On moral responsibility"— are not about "moral responsibility"; they are about Chomsky's beliefs (and one can only assume, yours, too.) The only crusader here is yourself, for inclusion of a non-neutral link . Your continued circuitous repetitions and resistance to the norms of Misplaced Pages is tantamount to trolling and "abuse of Talk pages". If you have something constructive to add to the article itself, please do. If you still don't believe that trying to sneak in a link to Noam Chomsky is inappropriate, please feel free to ask for another opinion. But do stop the nagging.—LeFlyman 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point" would be helpful here. Tcsh, your opinion on the Chomsky quotes is duly noted, but I think there's a strong consensus against including them. I ask that you respect that consensus and stop adding the link to the page. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Both Keithlaw and Leflyman won't answer specific questions that I asked them. I'll wait and see whether other editors in the future agree with the "strong consensus" of these two. I'll stop 'abusing' (=responding?) the talk page for now, to keep them happy. Tcsh 11:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You asked me one question, which I missed earlier, and have now answered above. And it's not just the two of us - Brian0918 and Datapharmer have both weighed in on the talk page against the link. Again, I ask that you respect the consensus and stop inserting the link to the quotes. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I am just a random wikipedian, but... I am satisfied that there is a consistent rational argument put forward that has nothing to do with anybody's personal opinion of Noam Chomsky. The articles referenced are all about the abstract philosophical concept, whereas the Noam Chomsky quotes are about the concrete application of that concept to real world situations. This wikipedia article is about the philosophical concept, and not about any particular concrete applications of the concept. The Noam Chomsky quotes are out of place. Omnifarious 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddha, Gandhi and Jesus as Experts?

Someone has added sections which refer to Buddha, Gandhi and Jesus as "experts" and sources for the article. Since of those, only Gandhi actually had verifiable writings and can be referenced for accuracy, such religious figures should not be included here. Much of the material smacks of Original Research and needs to be pruned back to the basics. Perhaps a division between religious moral responsibility and philosophical moral responsibility needs to be made (albeit, there is cross-fertilization between the two.) —LeFlyman 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the word "expert" should be replaced by something like "religious figure", as you say, and that it'd be good to separate and mention just religion (without philosophy) in such a paragraph, instead of the mixed way that it was added. But other people could have different opinions, e.g. Jesus is GWB's favorite philosopher... Tcsh 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the claim in this article that Jesus ever espoused the idea that "free will is the subjective experience of an objective, pre-determined world, in which there is no blame to be had since everything has already been thought of by the Creator," has been supported. The author of this statement needs to give supporting references or remove this text. --Markzero 07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: the block of text I'm questioning appears to have been inserted by Jonny Citizen. --Markzero 07:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Leflyman has removed the contentious text. (Thanks!) Leaving my comments in case the text resurfaces. --Markzero 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds pretty bad to me too. This whole article probably needs some trimming ... it was just started because somebody wrote a column saying "Misplaced Pages has no entry for moral responsibility" and in the rush to get an article, we've written a crappy article. --Nerd42 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"harm"?

This article says:

It generally concerns the harm caused to an individual, a group or the entire society by the actions or inactions of another individual, group or entire society.

I find it surprising that anyone thinks responsibility is primarily about harm. What if I award someone a barnstar because of that person's responsibility for the content of an article? What if I put away money for my retirement because that's the responsible thing to do---responsibility being my recognition that if I want something I shouldn't just wait for it to be given to me, but rather I should do something? Michael Hardy 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Introduction

The introduction includes reference to the argument that one can never be 100% responsible for an act. While this is true it neglects to mention that certain persons are far more responsible than others due to risky actions taken by them. I suggest that an edit be made to either the introduction or to another part of the article touching on this point.--86.42.2.200 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sentence was sort of floating out of context there anyway, and the subject was covered later on to boot, so I just removed it along with a general copyedits and cleanup / minor reorg.

BTW, new topics go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

the status of morally deserving praise

I have no idea what the new lead means- Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise...in accordance with one's moral obligations. Somehow "morally deserving praise" has a status and the name of this status is "moral responsibility" and it accords with your obligations? Bhny (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it it's the postpositional clause "in accordance with one's moral obligations" that you find confusing -- I'm not super happy about the way that's worded myself. The intended meaning is: A person is morally responsible if and only if he morally deserves for an action or omission. Whether a person is for an act or omission is a matter determined by whether the acts or omissions actually perpetrated are those which are morally obligatory. E.g. a person is morally responsible for an act if he deserves praise for performing it and blame for omitting it, which would be the case if performing it (and consequently, not omitting it) was morally obligatory.

If you have a better idea for a succinct way to phrase that I'm all ears. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I gather you find "status" confusing somehow too. A status is any case of "being..." something. I have the status of being alive, since I am alive; of being human, since I am human; of being male, since I am male; of being awake, since I am awake; of being a US citizen, since I am a US citizen; etc. But what constitutes the status of being a US citizen? One might answer that question by saying "US citizenship is the status of...". Likewise, if I am morally responsible for something, then I have the status of being morally responsible. What constitutes that status? Morally deserving blame or praise etc...

The point of that change of terminology is that "moral responsibility is the idea..." is sloppy language. There is an idea of moral responsibility, and it is the idea of being praiseworthy/blameworthy/etc. Moral responsibility itself, not the idea thereof, is being praiseworthy/blameworthy/etc. What is praiseworthiness? The status of deserving praise. So moral responsibility is the status of deserving praise, blame, etc...

IOW "morally deserving praise" etc doesn't have a status, it is a status, and it is the same status as being morally responsible. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A lead has to be simple. You've just spent over 300 words trying to explain your lead and I still don't understand it. "Status" is just sitting there without a subject- (the status of a person?) and who is doing the praise, blame etc. I'm reminded of this nyt article about zombie nouns. Also there's no reference. Is this all wp:or?

I think it is you who are simply having trouble understanding a simple common phrasing. Do you have a problem with the analogous example sentence I gave, "US citizenship is the status of..."? For example, "US citizenship is the status of having the rights and responsibilities due to natural-born residents of the United States, in accordance with the US Constitution"? (Whether or not that is a true definition, I'm just asking if it formally make sense to you, grammatically). US citizenship is a status (that of being a US citizen); to have that status is to have the rights and responsibilities due to a natural-born citizen; which rights and responsibilities those are are laid out in the US constitution. Does that parse for you? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether you can explain it to me or not is beside the point. It needs to be understandable by the average reader (also you have failed to explain it to me and I've even read one of the books referenced). Your intro is both ambiguous and circumlocutious . "Status" is confusing jargon, there is no subject that has the status, nobody is conferring the blame and then there is a weird ending where "it's in accordance with one's moral obligations". Did you read my nyt link? Is this original research? Bhny (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There were no references in the original lede which I simply rephrased, so leveling OR allegations at me specifically is rather lawyerish of you. I changed "idea" to "status" to avoid something like a use-mention error (the idea of something is not the same as that something), and moved the material on blame, praise, and punishment up to the first sentence (and added "reward" as the obvious counterpart to "punishment") as it is more substantial than just the bit about moral obligations that was there before. (I didn't add that "weird ending", I left it there from what preceded my edits; I don't much care if it's deleted for that matter). I'll dig up some references if you honestly think I'm making something up, but this is basic dictionary definition kind of stuff.

Furthermore, your objections are grammatical, and you cite (in a note that doesn't show up anywhere on the talk page BTW, I had to view the source to see it) an opinion piece in a recent newspaper about not using certain perfectly grammatical constructs (nominalizations) because they are "too abstract", but this is an article about an abstract topic so they are absolutely warranted here. Saying who has the status, or confers the blame etc, would be so specific as to make the sentence no longer a general definition. I challenge you to rephrase the sentence "Someone (anyone) is morally responsible when they deserve praise/blame/reward/punishment from someone (anyone)" in a way that begins with "Moral responsibility is..." without using nominalizations. ("Moral responsibility is the status of someone of deserving praise/blame/reward/punishment from someone"? Would adding "someone"s in there make you happy? I think it makes it needlessly long when they are implied by not specifying a subject). The title of this article is a nominalization itself. Misplaced Pages articles in general are often nominalizations: we wouldn't have an article called "Morally responsible", or to use an example from your link, we wouldn't have "tend", we would have "tendency". Your cited opinion piece is ridiculously irrelevant here.

Lastly, here's a quick dictionary link for you, Collins World English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com) on "responsibility" (there isn't an entry for "moral responsibility" specifically): "1. the state or fact of being responsible." Are you going to argue that state means something significantly different from status (I wouldn't object to changing the word in this article to 'state' if that's all it takes), or that the dictionary is doing something wrong there in using a "zombie noun"? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This argument over the introduction is well-founded: the introductory sentence is meaningless. The Stanford Encylopedia suggests "Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it." The Internet Encyclopedia relates it to "arrangements appropriate for addressing widespread harm and wrongdoing". In line with this WP article, neither of these articles actually provides sources for these claims, and both involve extended attempts to further explain what is meant, apparently finding the topic a bit hard to pin down. They also appear to confuse responsibility with its enforcement mechanisms, suggesting one identifies the presence of responsibility by observing that an activity is socially coerced. The ten commandments, on the other hand, attempted to change social behavior based upon higher principles, suggesting a different idea of what was moral responsibility than simply whether or not one was stoned by crowds of the indignant. In any event, the introduction needs sources and needs to avoid the circularity involved in using undefined terms like "moral obligations" and "morally deserving " in trying to convey a meaning for "moral responsibility". Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

Here is a proposal for the lede:

Moral responsibility concerns what one ought to do, not in the sense of convention (as in: one ought to use this fork for salad), nor advisability (as in: one ought to look before one leaps), nor expectation (as in: the brakes ought to stop the car), but in terms of human character, of obligation, of duty, and more generally, of ethics, as in: one ought to keep promises and ought to avoid mendacity.

Peter Cave. "Chapter 4: What – morally – ought we to do?". Philosophy: A beginner's guide. Oneworld Publications. pp. 54–74. ISBN 9781851689378.

Brews ohare (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Current wording is not brilliant, but it is understandable. Also lede is meant to summarise the article as a whole. We should not be taking a definition from a single source - and much as I love Cave, he is not the most authoritative of sources. Open to change, but not that change ----Snowded 10:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Current wording is that "moral responsibility" is a "status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act...". The suggestion is that 'moral responsibility' is signaled by observing the means used to enforce it. That confuses the goal with the means proposed to enforce it. 'Moral responsibility' is a goal demanded from adherents of some or another particular code of ethics. Acts of praise, blame and so forth are the mechanisms used by the group to enforce 'moral responsibility', and have nothing to do with the precept itself, but are an outgrowth of assumptions as to what kind of social enforcement is effective.

Current wording also uses 'moral obligation' and 'morally deserving' to identify the trigger springing these responses of 'praise, blame, reward, or punishment', which obviously is circular, using 'moral obligation' to explain 'moral responsibility'.

One doesn't define a traffic violation as the 'status of being pulled over by a traffic cop'. The cop knows what is a violation, so why wouldn't we use his definition?

The proposal made above involving 'ought' is not 'a definition from a single source'. It is a definition supported by a source, which is one step ahead of the current formulation which is the unsourced opinion of a WP editor. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made another proposal of a more abstract nature in a subsection below.

Demanding moral responsibility is counterproductive.

Most psychologists appear to believe that free will is an illusion and after-justification, but metastudies by Kurt Fischer, Christina Hinton and others at "Mind, Brain and Education" have linked the prevalence of extreme recoveries after brain damage (that are unexplainable by established neurological and psychological theories) to unusually tolerant social environments. This can be explained by the model that social pressure to justify one's actions leads to justifications that paralyze an underlying ability of practically unlimited self-correction. This is explained in greater detail on the pages "Moderating the free will debate" and "Brain" on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the scientific method unaffected by academic prestige. 94.191.162.74 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Highly misleading mistake

Libertarianism does not say that pshysical deteminism is false nor that "free will" in the sense meant here is possible.
Libertarisniam means that free will in sense of free of coercion can and should exist. That's all!
Please correct that picture ans correct the article. 79.112.21.245 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacement of lede

The present lede states:

Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations. Deciding what if anything is morally obligatory is a principal concern of ethics.

There are three drawbacks to this lede:

(i) it is circular, basically suggesting that 'moral responsibility' is explained by 'moral obligation' or 'morally deserving', and

(ii) it suggests that moral responsibility is a 'status' that attracts 'praise, blame, reward, or punishment'. 'Moral responsibility' is not a 'status': it is a commitment to adhere to one or another code of conduct, and

(iii) it suggests that 'moral responsibility' is identifiable by certain social responses: 'morally deserved' praise, blame, etc., which suggests observation of triggered responses is a substitute for understanding what is the trigger.

The present lede is analogous to defining a 'traffic violation' as 'the status of being pulled over by a traffic cop', instead of referring to breaking the laws governing moving vehicles.

The two sentences of the current lede might be improved by combining them, maybe like this:

Moral responsibility is a commitment to adhere to one or another code of conduct governing 'right' and 'wrong' behavior, such codes being a principal concern of ethics, and is enforced in accordance with a group's chosen behavioral code, in particular, by social reactions of praise, blame, reward, or punishment.

A less abstract proposal with a source is presented in an earlier subsection.

It would be nice to have a source supporting whatever formulation is ultimately adopted. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't limit Moral responsibly to adherence to a 'code of conduct', that is a partial view ----Snowded 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain? The Stanford encyclopedia says "morality" can be used to refer to a code of conduct, suggesting to me that 'moral responsibility' would be related to adherence to one or another such code of conduct. Brews ohare (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you have not commented upon the three listed shortcomings of the current lede. Any thoughts ? Brews ohare (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To say something can be used to define a code of conduct is not to say that it is to adhere to a code of conduct. This use of internet search only to source your material always ends of with partial views largely based on your own interpretation of limited sources. Your stated short comings have similar defects. So I have explained my statement, although it was pretty self evident. However I am not getting sucked into another of your extended multi-section debates on minor issues with no other editors involved. ----Snowded 08:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your paraphrase is wrong, introducing a confusion between morality and moral responsibility that is not part of the proposed lede. Morality refers to a code of conduct, and moral responsibility to an attitude of commitment to that code. (Sources relevant to this point are Haste and King & Carruthers and discussions of free will vis-à-vis moral responsibility, such as Doyle and Fischer.) There is no "partial view" here. Also, the shortcomings of the current lede have no relation to your misreading here of the above proposed lede, so you have yet to comment upon the three stated deficits of the current lede. You are under no obligation to present your objections in an understandable manner, of course, but as they now stand they are unclear (although self-evident to yourself) and also unsupported by any logic or any source. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. You are advocating a partial view. The concept of moral responsibility is parametric on morality. As the article says, the question of what moral failure means is a concern of ethics. I will additionally respond to your three objections.

1. It is not circular to define moral responsibility in terms of a given morality because we are interested here in what it means to be responsible for moral failures and what response is appropriate.
2. Moral responsibility is a status. When we say "dogs are not morally responsible", we mean they are not the kind of beings that deserve blame for ethical failures.
3. Again, the current lead is correct, and the key concept is deserving blame and praise. It has nothing to do with actually "observing" a reaction; the question is what kind of reaction is warranted.

Your view on this is idiosyncratic. Why are you even citing Doyle and a specialized journal article "Moral Responsibility and Consciousness"? We are dealing with a basic concept here. Have you read any foundational textbook, a basic introduction to free will, or any full-length treatment of the subject at all? Like Snowded, I get the very distinct impression that you are just googling for whatever supports your own interpretations. Vesal (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesal: I'm sure that your claim of agreement with Snowded is significant, although you have gone beyond what he has so far endorsed. But how about some sources? Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesal: I'll examine your three points: (i) You say it is not circular to define moral responsibility in terms of a morality. I think your added comment about "what it means to be responsible for moral behavior" is exactly what the proposed lede says. (ii) I find the comment that the "status" of a dog is to be beyond blame for ethical failure unrelated to the subject. On the other hand, to be blamed for ethical failure is to be challenged as to your adherence to some particular moral code, as stated in the proposed lede (iii) The question of reactions is addressed in the proposed lede, not as part of the definition of moral responsibility, but as indicative of how such responsibility is enforced in society. You have confused the enforcement mechanism with the term itself, a confusion not found in the proposed lede. Moral responsibility is a commitment to a code of behavior, and one who has so engaged has agreed to be subject to sanctions for transgression. Such a person has a certain status vis à vis their commitment as either "being in compliance" or as "being in violation" with their adopted code.

My mention of Doyle and other sources is simply to indicate there is much more to be said here, and it is not suggested that these sources are literal support for the proposed lede, but that they help to round out the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The present lead is consistent with all usages of the term that I've seen in the literature. Still, I checked on Oxford Reference if there is as succinct definition and the Oxford Companion to Philosophy has this: "The term moral responsibility covers (i) the having of a moral obligation and (ii) the fulfilment of the criteria for deserving blame or praise (punishment or reward) for a morally significant act or omission." I don't see this as very different from the current lead. Vesal (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesall: Thanks for introducing a consideration of sources, which I feel is the proper way to discuss matters. The first definition you found: the having of a moral obligation sounds very similar to the proposal here of commitment to a code of conduct. This last formulation has the merit of not using 'moral' in the course of defining 'moral responsibility', thereby avoiding circularity. Brews ohare (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think three of us have now said that it is not circular to use the word 'moral' in a definition of moral responsibility. Also you have not handled the objection that while a code of conduct is one way that morality may be expressed it is not the only way. So with Vesal, the current definition seems closer to generic sources ----Snowded 22:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Got another way? Let's hear it. A source would be nice too. Brews ohare (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesall gave you a source which is close to the current version and most of the general textbooks I checked are similar. Remember the lede summarises the article. Your proposed change fails for the reasons above (elaborated by Pfhorrest below). I'm OK with the current wording, the imperative for change is coming from you, so its up to you to both justify any change and get other editors to agree. I also think you should be paying Pfhorrest for the work he has put in here and on other articles to tutor you in matters philosophique  :-) ----Snowded 10:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Obligation and commitment

This is a continuation of the above thread.

"Having a moral obligation" and "commitment to a code of conduct" sound like entirely different things, even setting aside the equivocation of "code of conduct" and "morality" already under discussion. "Commitment to " sounds like the person in question (the one whose moral responsibility is under discussion) has merely set themselves to a certain opinion about what they ought or ought not do, or has intended to do or not do certain things. But to have an obligation it is neither necessary nor sufficient that the person thus obligated be committed to doing what they are obligated; it merely requires that it be wrong for them to do otherwise. For a close analogy: a legal obligation is something which the law says you must do or else you are legally (i.e. according to the law) in the wrong, and some kind of censure (punishment, blame, etc) is legally warranted or deserved (i.e. warranted or deserved according to the law). Even if that censure is not enacted for one reason or another, it is the warrant or dessert of it which constitutes the obligation, not the actual act of being censured, nor the acceptance by the criminal of his guilt. Say for example a criminal maintains that what he did was not wrong, but it was nevertheless illegal, but he dies of a random aneurysm before he can be punished; it can still be found that he was legally in the wrong, that he had violated some legal obligation, and that, were he still around to receive it, he would deserve something for that, because he was legally responsible for that transgression. Even though he had not committed himself to abstaining from that act, and he did not receive the punishment the law said was warranted. Moral responsibility and obligation is exactly analogous to that, except that the standard of right and wrong involved is a moral standard (however morality may be construed), rather than a legal one. To be morally in the wrong is to violate some moral obligation and to morally deserve something in response to that because you're morally responsible for that transgression; whether or not you have committed yourself to that moral standard, and whether or not anyone actually supplies the response you morally deserve. (Throw in negations where necessary in here to get analogous scenarios for praiseworthiness instead of blameworthiness). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: So glad to see you take an interest here. There are many varieties of "code of conduct" and I suppose we must decide what distinguishes a 'moral' code of conduct from others. This source might be useful in doing that. Assuming that can be settled, the issue raised is how 'moral responsibility' differs from commitment to such a code. It would seem to me that from the anthropologist's viewpoint, a citizen is viewed as having a moral responsibility if they subscribe to some code, but from the person's view, if they don't subscribe they have no such responsibility. Although, of course, a group espousing the code will think that a person opting out is lacking in moral responsibility. Of course, if one takes the view that there exists some supreme code that all of us are subject to, like it or not, that places things in a different light. But it is likely that some of us will disagree with the particulars of whatever religion or philosophical position proposes that code, and so an undecidable war of fanaticism may break out. It would be most helpful if some sources could be compared on this point. I'll pursue that avenue. Pfhorrest, do you think that moral responsibility can be defined separate from any code of any kind? Is this the issue? Brews ohare (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In this regard, the examples you have so far discussed are as seen by the group espousing the code or law, while the concept of 'moral responsibility' IMO should be viewed from outside. Brews ohare (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting at all on the equivocation of "code of conduct" and "morality" -- I'm leaving that aside completely, and only mentioned it to say (apparently unclearly) that I am not saying anything about it.

I was commenting on your equivocation of "responsibility" and "commitment", and noting that the sense of "responsible" in use here is not the sense roughly synonymous with "dependable" or "reliable" or "trustworthy", as used in phrases like "take responsibility", e.g. to personally commit to seeing something through in a dependable, reliable, trustworthy fashion. It is rather more a synonym of "accountable" or "answerable" -- it means you are "on the hook" for your actions, deserving of some kind of response to them (praise and reward for good ones, blame and punishment for bad ones), that such response is warranted.

This is especially evident in your clause "a group espousing the code will think that a person opting out is lacking in moral responsibility". I think you mean that to be synonymous to "...a person opting out is being irresponsible", in which sense that clause is true. But that is not at all the sense of "responsibility" at issue here. Rather, it is the sense used in a sentence like "to be irresponsible is to shirk one's responsibility"; that is, if you fail to act as you are responsible for acting -- are you are obligated to act, as you ought to act -- then you are being irresponsible, but it doesn't mean you were not responsible for the thing you failed to do. In that sense, your clause is backward: the group espousing the code will think that a person opting out of it is nevertheless still morally responsible ("on the hook"), but is wrongly shirking that responsibility (neglecting his duty).

To use a legal analogy again: a parent has certain legal responsibilities to his children, which is just to say that the law claims him to be have responsibilities. He can be irresponsible, and shirk those responsibilities, but that does not absolve him of those responsibilities -- the law will still hold him to be legally responsible to his children, not in the sense of saying "this guy did his job", but in the sense of saying "this guy has a job he must do".

Speaking of jobs, at work I also have various responsibilities, in the sense of jobs I must do. I am put in the position of having those responsibilities, in that sense, because I am a responsible person, in the other sense of someone who reliably does the things he must do. If I fail to do something I am responsible (accountable, on the hook) for, it makes me irresponsible (unreliable, undependable), but it does not make me not responsible (it doesn't get me off the hook -- I'm still accountable for the failure to do what I was supposed to do).

Note that being accountable, answerable, on the hook, or (in that sense) responsible for something is not the same thing as receiving the praise/blame/reward/punishment for it, but rather deserving or warranting praise/blame/reward/punishment for it. You seem to have confused the receipt of a response with the dessert or warrant of a response in the lede as it was before, and want to insert a similar confusion (reliability or dependability instead of accountability or answerability) in a misguided attempt to clear that up. You're thinking the lede defines moral responsibility in terms of one descriptive quality and want to change it to define it in terms of a different descriptive quality, when it's actually defining it (as it should) in terms of a prescriptive or normative quality like dessert or warrant. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: I feel misunderstood. "Being on the hook" involves two separate things: the rule of the group and one's adoption of the group. If one wishes to belong to the group that requires each family to have only one child, one is "on the hook" if one has more than one. If you belong to the group that requires every pregnancy be carried to term, you are "on the hook" if you have an abortion. One deserves praise for having many children in one group, and is censured for excess in the other. If one is not a member of the group, one feels no guilt or shame over violating their desiderata unless they overlap those you subscribe to, and if one is part of the group, one identifies with its methodology, and internalize its concepts of what deserves blame and shame. The notion that such rules have an origin above and outside of group tenets, or that their enforcement is imposed by some Universal Law and not just group requirements, is simply a belief, and one that different groups have fought to the death over. We probably should address sources on these matters, and not our opinions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you agree with me on this, and wish simply to return to a linguistic debate close that about free will: in other words, can one be responsible for anything one does (in the moral realm or elsewhere) when (according to some) one is simply driven by the fundamental "laws of nature" (as we presently envisage them as all-encompassing) to act like every other machine, in accordance with the initial conditions set at the time of the "big bang" and a few laws of probability? If the answer is that we have no capacity for initiative, then "moral responsibility" is a nonsensical notion entertained by those who just don't get it that they have no choice. That is the dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is just a linguistic issue, not something that requires lengthy comparison of philosophical literature. Just look up "responsibility" in a dictionary. I'd say I can't believe there's this much confusion over a simple linguistic issue, except that you've had this kind of confusion over simple language over and over again on other articles.

Let's take, for a concrete example, a conservative Christian who holds that homosexual acts are morally wrong, for anyone, anywhere, always, while meanwhile some atheist men in San Francisco routinely perform fellatio on each other. The Christian would say that those men are blameworthy for their acts, regardless of their adoption of his Christian moral standards, or of his ability to enforce those standards. He would also say they are being morally irresponsible, in that they are shirking their moral responsibilities, obligations, or duties. He would hold them to be accountable or answerable for their actions, deserving of blame or perhaps even punishment for them, even though they have not made any kind of commitment to his moral principles, and even though he has no means of punishing them.

We could argue about whether or not that Christian man was correct about any of that, but that would just be to argue about whether his moral standard is correct or not. But when he says "those men have a moral responsibility not to engage in homosexual acts", what his words mean (whether or not he is correct in saying so) is neither "they are committed to refraining from such acts", nor "they will be blamed/punished for such acts", but rather "they deserve to be blamed/punished for such acts". That's the meaning of word "responsibility", regardless of whether anyone actually is responsible for anything or not -- it's what's being claimed when someone says someone is responsible, even if they're wrong to say so.

Someone else please engage Brews here, I really don't want to be drawn into a hundred pages of explaining the meaning of a simple word to him again. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: I fail to see any difference between our opinions. We both agree that in some instances Group A will say those that don't follow their precepts are blameworthy, while Group B will say they are praiseworthy. And we both agree that the term 'moral responsibility' may be invoked by either group to characterize the act as responsible or irresponsible. I've said that 'moral responsibility' is relative to the credo one has committed to, and one held to be morally responsible or the contrary depending upon the credo of the speaker. What do you say that is different? Brews ohare (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That there is a sense of the word "responsible" -- the one relevant to this article -- which doesn't mean "lives up to expectations" like the sense you're using (which is another valid sense of it), but rather, "is expected to do something". ("Expectations" here not meaning a factual prediction of behavior, but a normative prescription of behavior -- an obligation or duty).

I've been trying to give a bunch of concrete examples of that to make it clear, but let's try another:

Bob is expected by the law to feed his children. There is a sense of the word "responsible" in which "Bob is legally responsible for feeding his children" means exactly that -- that Bob is expected by the law to feed his children.

Bob might not feed his children, in which case he has shirked his responsibility, and can be called "irresponsible", meaning he has not lived up to what was expected of him. We might say that Bob is "not responsible" as a way of saying that same thing -- that he does not live up to expectations -- but if we say that, we are using "responsible" in a different sense than the one in which we first called Bob "responsible" for feeding his children.

Because despite his failure to do so, Bob is still responsible for feeding his children in that first sense, even while simultaneously being irresponsible (or "not responsible") in the second sense. He is responsible for feeding his children, in the first sense that he is accountable or answerable for doing so, he is obliged or duty-bound to do so; but he is at the same time irresponsible, in the second sense of unreliable, undependable, or untrustworthy, because he has failed to do what he is responsible (in the first sense) for.

The relevance to this article is that when people talk about "moral responsibility", they're not talking about people being reliably or dependably moral; they're talking about them being morally accountable or answerable.

And then a further point of clarification anticipating your response to that: being accountable or answerable is not the same thing as being called to account or answer. To say that someone is accountable or answerable for something is not to say that they will be blamed/praised/punished/rewarded for their behavior, but that they deserve to be, whether or not they actually are. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pfhorrest: Thanks for this effort. It looks to me like you are drawing a distinction between (i) a failure of character on the part of a particular Bob who fully intends to behave according to the precepts of Group A but doesn't achieve his goals, and (ii) a failure by a Bob that has no intention to follow these precepts because, in fact, he belongs to Group B that has a different set of precepts. Group A may see Bob as morally irresponsible in the first case because of a lack of will power or character that means you can't depend on him to follow through, but in the second case he is an infidel, can be expected not to follow the rules because he marches to a different drummer, but still he (and everybody else in Group B) is classified as morally irresponsible. I'd take it that the second case is the important one for this article. I say that because the article is concerned with the abstract definition of 'moral responsibility' which I take as not referring to a question of the character of some participant, but instead to a model behavior comprised of adherence to a particular code of conduct, a code that may vary from Group A to Group B. Am I on track? Brews ohare (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to draw any kind of distinction about Bob's intentions or not, or his membership in any group. I'm trying to draw a distinction between a statement about Bob's intention or actions, and a statement about Bob's duties or obligations.

Bob may be a happy member of the society which says he has a legal responsibility to feed his kids. He may even agree that he has that responsibility, and merely have some kind of self-control issues that leave him doing things he thinks he shouldn't (or failing to do things he thinks he should). Or maybe, yeah, he disagrees with the law that says he has to do things. The reason for Bob's failure to meet some standard is not the issue. The issue is: are we saying something about Bob actually meeting that standard (or his intending to, or whatever); or are we saying something about there being a standard to which Bob is held in the first place?

To say that someone is morally responsible is not to say that they are successful at being moral or that they try really hard to be moral or anything about their measuring up to (or trying to measure up to) some standard of morality. It is instead to say that they are being measured (or perhaps are measurable) to begin with. To use a metaphor: if there is a race or another competition, you can say things about how well the competitors performed, or how hard they tried, or various judgements like that; but you can also say whether a person is a competitor at all in the first place, someone to whom such judgements apply, as opposed to just a bystander or spectator. Someone who is not even entered into the race can't be judged to have tried hard or performed well or anything like that; you don't pick a out a spectator who sat on his seat watching the whole race and say that he "didn't even try", because he's not in the class of people who are even expected to try; you can, however, say that, that he is not in the class of people expected to try. The sense of "responsibility" relevant to this article is one analogous to "being a competitor" (so being "not responsible" is analogous to being "not even entered in the race, not expected to try"), rather than the one analogous to "performing well" or "trying hard" (where "irresponsible" would be analogous to "performing poorly" or "not trying") that you are hung up on.

A concrete example of something which is not morally responsible would be a strong wind which blows over a tree onto someone's house. The wind is not something that is subject to moral judgements; it doesn't have duties or obligations, it doesn't deserve blame or praise or punishment or reward, it's just an impersonal force of nature, so it his held to be not morally responsible. In contrast, a person who cuts down a tree and lets it fall on someone's house would, by many standards, be morally responsible for that; he would be subject to moral judgement for it. (Or course there are detailed philosophical issues about when, if ever, a person is morally responsible in that sense, and if so what for; that's what the bulk of this article is about). A person who cuts down a tree in a better manner that does not ruin someone's house is also morally responsible for their actions, in that they are still subject to moral judgement; they just receive a more positive judgement than the other guy. Both people are responsible in the relevant sense to this article: they are subjects of moral judgement or evaluation, praise or blame, punishment or reward, as opposed to something like the wind, which is not. The first person was also irresponsible in a different sense, the one you're hung up on, because he failed to live up to his responsibilities in the relevant sense. The wind, on the other hand, is not responsible in either sense, because it's not the kind of thing to which moral judgement applies, and thus cannot be deserving of a negative judgement, or any judgement for that matter; it cannot be irresponsible, because it is not responsible in the first place. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is not much we can do about the problem that Brews does not like how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and other reliable sources define the technical term "moral responsibility". While I find Pfhorrest's elaborations above interesting, I do not believe it is possible to explain it any more clearly than he already has.

My intention is not to shut down this discussion if you both find it fruitful, but there are very clear indications above that Pfhorrest is getting tired of this. Brews, I suggest you have a frank discussion on Pfhorrest talk page about why this is frustrating him. I speculate that he is spending a lot more time and effort to write these lengthy explanations than you take to read and think about what he has already written. Vesal (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A claim about someone being morally responsible is a claim about that person being subject to moral judgement

A continuation of this thread:

Pfhorrest: It seems clear that you believe there is some absolute requirement for certain resposibilities that transcends all mores. Although this belief may be widely shared, and certainly you are free to adopt it, in my view it has no basis in fact. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No Brews, I am not making any claim about whether moral universalism is true or not. I am merely saying that when someone else makes a claim about someone being morally responsible, they are making a claim about that person being subject to moral judgement, and not a claim about how well they measure up to that moral judgement. The person making that claim might be a relativist or a universalist, and whether they would make such a claim or not in various circumstances, and what exactly they would mean by that claim if they did make it, would depend largely on that. But our definition of the topic in this article can't depend on that, and I don't intend it to, at all. Quite the contrary.

You on the other hand seem intent on defining the very issue in question in such a way that your (apparently reductivist, eliminativist) view on it is true by definition, which is something you've repeated across several articles now. I am in no way trying to rule out such positions as yours by definition. I am trying to keep you from, amongst other things, ruling out other positions by definition, by leaving the language unbiased toward those issues. To be morally responsible is to be an appropriate target of moral judgement. Exactly who is an appropriate target of moral judgement, by what standards they are to be judged, what exactly "moral" means in the first place, and so on, are questions to be explored in the article and in the many other articles about moral topics elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. We cannot pack in one biased and controversial set of answers to all those many questions into the definition of this narrower topic. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: Your position is becoming clearer to me now. The topic of 'moral responsibility' in your view is not about what the content of the concept is, but about "being subject to 'moral judgment'" or "To be morally responsible is to be an 'appropriate' target of 'moral judgement'". The natural questions of how that conclusion was arrived at, or what 'moral judgment' or 'appropriate' might mean are different topics that should be dealt with in other articles. That seems to allow this article to be amazingly short, reducing it to one sentence with a number of words whose definition is to be found elsewhere ('moral judgment' redirects to 'morality', which has a banner objecting to its content, and which does not discuss 'moral judgment' at all). Is that your intention? If more is to be said, what besides this sentence is permissible here? And, in all objectivity, would any reader be satisfied with this run-around, the least helpful form of dictionary entry? Brews ohare (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My objections here are only to you (once again) seeming to misapprehend, or at least want to misstate, what the definition of the topic of the article is about. Something like "To be morally responsible is to be an 'appropriate' target of 'moral judgement'" is only a statement of what the topic to be discussed in the article is, not an exhaustive statement of everything there is to be said about it. Once the lede says what we're talking about, the rest of the article can discuss -- as it does -- different views about when someone is an appropriate target of moral judgement (i.e. morally responsible) or not, and why. Those different views about when someone is or not and why they are or aren't will of course be grounded in particular views about what moral standards are correct, what morality is in the first place, and so on, and the discussion of them can summarize each of those views with links to other articles for more detailed reading on them. But the opening statement about what it is that this article will be discussing different views on cannot in itself take a stance siding with any of those views.

My objections to your proposal are threefold:

• You seem to misinterpret the old lede as defining moral responsibility in terms of the response received for certain acts, when it instead defines it in terms of the desert of a response.
• Your proposed new lede seems to read "responsibility" in the sense of "tendency to live up to obligations", when the intended sense of the term is "having of obligations".
• Both of these seem to belie an intentional attempt to avoid acknowledging that people often think in normative, not only descriptive, concepts, and that this concept is one of such.
  • In the first case, you misread a definition of one normative concept in terms of other normative concepts as a definition of a normative concept in terms of a descriptive one, and rightly get nonsense from that interpretation because that's not what it's saying at all.
  • In the second case, you try to give a sensible definition of the words in terms of descriptive concepts by equivocating one sense of the word "responsible", a sense which does properly denote a descriptive concept, with a different sense of the word, which is the sense used in the phrase "moral responsibility".

On that last note, please see Dictionary.com's list of definitions for the word "responsibility". You seem to be reading the word in the last (fifth) sense there, "reliability or dependability". Everyone who makes use of this phrase in the professional literature understands it in the first sense there, "the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something". That is the thing that I originally commented on, and like Vesal said elsewhere, until it's clear that you are even using words in the same way as everyone else, there can't be any more productive conversation on the matter.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pfhorrest: Let's distinguish between what we think and whether it is lucidly expressed. So one item you mention is that I have misunderstood the current lede, interpreting its reference to 'status' in an unintended manner. Maybe that means this wording should be fixed?

Another of your points is that the new proposal can be misread as suggesting 'moral responsibility' refers to a tendency to live up to a code, while its real meaning is a requirement to live up to a code. Again, one could ask for an alternative phrasing that would be clearer.

However, turning to what I think, rather than its wording, I partly disagree with the 'requirement' formulation because 'responsibility' has to stem from something, it isn't a given, although some philosophers (as discussed by Gert) have tried to develop a universal basis leading to such responsibility. So there may be some who have subscribed to that view of some basic universal requirement for some kinds of responsibility. But certainly a viable view is that the requirement to behave in certain ways is the result of personally subscribing (committing) to some code of morality that is perhaps arrived at by one's own thought, or more commonly is adopted from one's milieu or religion. The responsibility stems from this commitment, personally decided upon, because breaking this commitment is a failure to live up to who you have decided to be, a corrosion of identity. One's reaction to violations is like the self-disgust that occurs when you have decided to stop smoking, and hate yourself when you repeatedly fail. However, moral responsibility based upon personal identity includes a decision to be a bona fide participant in a group that you think shares these obligations. A vivid example of adopting an identity is being "born again" or St. Paul's conversion. The group's critique of your life has force because you have chosen to identify with the group's goals, and your understanding of these goals may even lead to your critique of the group's actions.

I have already lengthily denied any intention to convey a limitation to dependability or follow-through. (Definition 5.)

The origin of the requirement to adopt certain responsibilities may be a digression, but returning again to wording, an unexamined presumption that such a responsibility is a given can be seen as an implication that there is a universal obligation that must be accepted. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I think your outline of what the article itself should contain is good (see below), but not descriptive of what actually is contained in the article. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording of the first sentence

It is still possible that something useful may come out of the above discussion, but we may also want to focus more directly on the wording of the first sentence. There has been objections before Brews about the wording. With the term "moral responsibility" philosopher aim to capture that essential feature of moral agents that make them appropriate targets of blame and praise. This is not an easy concept to explain in a way that conforms to Misplaced Pages's stylistic conventions. I personally cannot improve on the first sentence, but I agree that the language is somewhat cumbersome, and it may not be easily understandable for those not already familiar with what philosophers are aiming at. If that is the case, it is a pretty serious problem: an introduction is useless if it is only understandable by those who already understand it. Vesal (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bravo!! Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A return to sources

Inasmuch as this discussion appears to have become a comparison of editors' personal views, which is not an interest of WP, let's look at some sources. The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia might be a good beginning. It introduces two approaches to understanding morality: the descriptive and the normative. That seems to be what underlies Pfhorrest's attempted distinctions regarding moral responsibility. According to this article:

"Among those who use "morality" normatively, all hold that "morality" refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it."

I'd note that this remark does not claim that there is one and only one code, but simply that those who adopt one or another such code feel that everybody is bound by it. This universality is Pfhorrest's view.

The article goes on to describe the descriptive sense:

"Morality" when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that "morality" in the normative sense does not have, namely that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of "morality" has no implications for how one should behave.

and this:

"...different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively"

These remarks are similar to my exposition above. This source makes clear that the 'normative' role of morality applies only within each particular group that accepts the normative value of the particular code it has selected for adoption, although that group may have the temerity to suggest their normative rules apply to all other groups as well. "Moral responsibility" is merely a descriptor emphasizing the normative role of an adopted code. That is what the lede should say. G

In fairness to the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia, I'd like to point out that Bernard Gert devotes much space to describe attempts by many philosophers to establish a universal normative role for some particular code of morality, for example, one suitable for "all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions". Those attempts cannot be described as successful even within their limitations to a parochial Western European culture.

I'd suggest further discussion be based upon sources, rather than our opinions. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest closing the discussion as three other editors disagree with you and you are, as ever not listening. ----Snowded 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: You are so amazingly opposed to any kind of development of content, even to the basic WP purpose of presenting established sources!! But you are also amazingly consistent in never discussing sources. For you, Snowded, WP is just a popularity contest. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Brews, every time no one agrees with you you claim you are the only one using sources and then you launch personal attack or two for reasons known only to your good self. I've discussed sources ad nauseam on past articles as others have done here and elsewhere but you never ever listen, you just carry on and on and on (and then you go on and on and on again with a different section heading). Time to end this one. ----Snowded 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Snowded, here is a grand opportunity for you to demonstrate your analysis of sources, viz the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia. I am confident that you can bring some light here, if you try. Brews ohare (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version Brews. Open to change but don't see it as an imperative. We've also discussed the Stanford Encyclopedia which is a collection of essays before. Sorry you waste too much time. ----Snowded 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind using the SEP, but why on earth would we start analyzing their definition of "morality" when they have a perfectly fine article on "moral responsibility"? This is precisely what is making you "unpopular", Brews. You insist on stringing a narrative together based on various unrelated sources instead of using those that directly relate to the topic at hand. Vesal (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesal: This is the article you refer to, written by Andrew Eshleman, who is less well known than Bernard Gert. If you find anything in Eshleman's article that contradicts Gert's, let's hear about it. So far as I can see, Eshleman simply relates 'moral responsibility' to the normative view of morality described by Gert, which is fine as far as it goes, but Gert more clearly underlines the limitations of this normative aspect to those individuals that subscribe to a particular moral code of conduct. Eshleman stresses instead the reactive attitudes among adherents to violations of their code. All these aspects belong in the WP article with appropriate sources. That entails a bit of work, because this WP article on 'moral responsibility' is just a rehash of stances upon free will, which exposition is far from covering the content of either of the Stanford Encyclopedia articles. Brews ohare (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Vesal, I object to your claim that my efforts here are a form of WP:SYN. I believe that my description of Gert is completely faithful to this source. Brews ohare (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Then please provide a quotation from Gert (or any other reliable source) that explicitly and directly supports your contention that "Moral responsibility is a descriptor emphasizing the normative role of an adopted code." I cannot find one. Vesal (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Vesal: Gert's article says:

"Among those who use "morality" normatively, all hold that "morality" refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it."

Eshleman focuses much attention upon the aspect "can govern their behavior by it" and dwells upon moral responsibility in the context of: "How can we be responsible if we are incapable of initiative?". That is also the aspect emphasized in the WP article. This viewpoint (however preoccupying) ignores the obvious diversity of extant moral codes and questions of how they might be compared or judged, and whether they deserve being followed. These interesting points are there independent of settling the undecidable issue of whether we are able to make decisions, and the validity of the presupposition that the universe is governed in every detail by 'natural laws' as we presently understand them.

Gert also points out:

"What 'morality' is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take 'morality' to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of 'morality' is the one used by anthropologists..."

Continuing along these lines, Gert says:

"'Morality' when used in a descriptive sense...refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."

That is, for an individual that does not belong to the group holding a moral code, that code has no normative implications (unless there is some overlap with that individual's code). The 'moral responsibility' of actions or individuals is relative to the code, and therefore also to the group adhering to that code. From this 'anthropological' standpoint, then, the normative aspect of a particular moral code of conduct is operative only within a group that adopts that code. That is the meaning of my sentence you wish corroborated.

Vesal, I don't think these matters can be summarized "explicitly and directly" in a sound bite. If the WP article is to provide an understandable presentation of these issues, more is needed. Perhaps the words above are adequately sourced and clear enough? What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Gert quote is qualified "among those who use "morality" normatively ..." which confirms what several of us have been trying to tell you, namely while codes of conduct are used in morality and may be sufficient, they are not necessary to a definition.----Snowded 07:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is how some of us understand it, but Brews reads the sources differently, so we really need explicit and direct support for whatever we want to claim. The excuse that these ideas cannot be expressed in a "sound-byte" is just nonsense. Brews, you have consistently been capable of forming such sentences: "The 'moral responsibility' of actions or individuals is relative to the code, and therefore also the group adhering to the code." What convoluted writers professional philosophers must be that they cannot express things as succinctly as you can...

Here is an example of how to provide a quotation to explicitly and directly support what you say. The Misplaced Pages policy on no original research states: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". You see, this quotation explicitly and directly supports what I am saying. Do you understand the concept? Vesal (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the Standford article says "Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it" and does not insist on a code of conduct. So I think there is citation support for something a lot closer to the current wording that the restricted definition Brew's is trying to use ----Snowded 13:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a relief to see content being discussed instead of my personal deficiencies. Snowded's quotation seems to me to be equivalent to my earlier (sourced) proposal based upon the word "ought". Like that proposal, the real basis of 'moral responsibility' is buried in the reactions of individuals, which reaction is arguably sourced in their acceptance of a particular moral code shared by their community. It may be noted that Pfhorrest does not agree with any formulation based upon occurrence of actual reactions: rather 'moral responsibility' is a trait exposing an individual or action to the possibility of censure or praise, and this article can duck any assessment of how this possibility might arise, why it arises in one group but not in another, or how such censure or praise differs from enforcement of etiquette, for example. Brews ohare (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

On which planet, with what linguistic system is the quote I provided closer to your proposed definition that it is to the current one? ----Snowded 14:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: I love how you always place hostility above content. To answer your incredulity, I have listed three problems with the current lede that have yet to be addressed. Brews ohare (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. This is a serious question. When you say "having a moral obligation" sounds very similar to "commitment to a code of conduct", it means that you read basic four-word sentences differently from us. How can we ever reach an agreement on complicated issues when we read key sentences differently. This is a problem. It is a complete waste of time to continue discussions unless we can solve this problem. Vesal (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it was me who changed the subject to difficulties with the current lede. I gather you want to consider the connection between code of conduct and moral obligation? As pointed out earlier, there are many different codes, and we have yet to clearly characterize a 'moral' code. However, putting that aside for now and restricting ourselves to a moral code, a 'moral obligation' entails a presumption that one or another such code should be followed. Obviously, I think, such a presumption stems from a commitment to one or another such code. Is there a problem here? Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, you list three problems with the current lede (so you are dissembling at least) instead of explaining how a form of words which is very similar to the current lede could possibly be interpreted as supporting your personal view that moral obligations are codes of conduct. As Vesal says you are simply using words in completely different ways from other editors and that makes it impossible to move forward until you get your act together ----Snowded 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Again, hostility before substance. You asked about the current lede and the current wording, and to compare it with "Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it". So I pointed out three difficulties with the current lede and the current wording, which are not shared by the preceding quotation. You then misconstrue what has been said with your phrase: "moral obligations are codes of conduct". The accurate statement, as I have explained just before your intemperance, is that "moral obligations stem from a commitment to one or another moral code of conduct". Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you consider total frustration with your inability to understand simple arguments and Your insistence on using language in a different way from everyone else Brews, then its hostility in response to an absence of substance. THREE editors have now said this to you in different ways on this page. You are wasting everyone's time with interminable postings.----Snowded 17:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And what actually have you said beyond chastisement so far? For instance, your response to the substance of three difficulties with the lede is? Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bruhaha

All this bruhaha is simply a distraction from considering the issues described above using quotes from Gert. The challenge is to take three things:

(i) Pfhorrest's view that 'moral responsibility' is a trait exposing an individual or action to the possibility of censure or praise, and this WP article can duck any assessment of how this possibility might arise, why it arises in one group but not in another, or how such censure or praise differs from enforcement of etiquette;

(ii) The current WP article's view that 'moral responsibility' is just a facet of the arguments over free will;

(iii) The 'anthropological' view that moral responsibility is relative to one or another de facto moral code of conduct;

and make some sense of them. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You have made one tangible proposal for a change - that has been rejected by other editors. The talk page is not a place for general discussion of the subject. In respect of (i) you have misrepresented Pfhorrest's position. In respect of (ii) if you have concrete proposals make them and they can be looked at. In respect of (iii) you really need to read some anthropology, in particular the difference between ideation and rule based cultures which is pretty basic. Once you have done that you may see that your statement is false. ----Snowded 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in following up on your suggestion about "ideation and rule based cultures" to track down why moral responsibility is, in your view, not relative to one or another de facto moral code. Perhaps you can suggest something? Brews ohare (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest is prepared to put time into your education I'm not. Any text book on cultural anthropology will give you that distinction, reading some philosophy rather than doing restricted web searches would also help. ----Snowded 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Very cooperative of you. How do you like this quote from "any textbook on social anthropology":

"Psychologists have joined with cultural anthropologists to generate an image of individual mental functioning as inseparable from social milieu. For example...'it is culture not biology that shapes...the human mind, that gives meaning to action by situating its underlying intentional states in an interpretive system'... moral responsibility seen as generated through the human beings we are in close contact with..." Perhaps you have something to add, Snowded? Brews ohare (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said try a basic introductory text book on cultural anthropology, I suggest a good bookshop or library rather than a crude google search ----Snowded 20:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: It is clear that there are some specific problems with the lede that have been pointed out and you choose to ignore. it is clear as well that the article is incomplete, as also has been attested by reputable quotations. Your most substantial contribution to these matters is to suggest a visit to the library with no specific aim in hand. Moreover, you prove incapable of understanding what is before you, as indicated by your incorrect restatements of arguments put forth. All this hardly qualifies your input as worth much thought. Brews ohare (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion that you visit a library related to your third point where your statement demonstrated that you had little knowledge of some basic features of anthropology. I even gave you an "aim" in suggesting that you take a look at the difference between ideation and rule based cultures. Something that might help you understand that moral responsibility (in a large part of the literature) cannot be solely associated with codes of conduct. As you say you have chosen not to give that much thought which is of course your prerogative. However you seem not to be giving too much thought to three editors who are disagreeing with you here. That tells its own story. ----Snowded 07:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, you have mentioned before that "moral responsibility (in a large part of the literature) cannot be solely associated with codes of conduct." As a responsible WP editor, it must concern you deeply that WP's article on Moral responsibility omits entirely any reference to this 'large part of the literature', which you suggest is an important theme of "ideation and rule based cultures", which in turn, you say, is a topic in "any text book on cultural anthropology". Addressing major omissions would be I guess, a (moral?) responsibility for yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You really need to read what various editors are actually saying. Wide of the mark as ever ----Snowded 20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Snowded, your responsibility toward WP is severely limited? It excludes contributing to completeness and accuracy of content based upon discussion of sources, and focuses instead upon holier-than-thou advice to contributors. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No further comment and my advice to other editors is simply to ignore you on this and other talk pages as long as you persist in simply not listening to anything which is said to you, either repeating your self or throwing out derogatory comments. To be very clear, without explicit consent on the talk page, any substantive edits to the article by you will be reverted ----Snowded 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest's outline

In a thread above, Pfhorrest has suggested the following outline of what this article should contain:

"the article can discuss -- as it does -- different views about when someone is an appropriate target of moral judgement (i.e. morally responsible) or not, and why. Those different views about when someone is or not and why they are or aren't will of course be grounded in particular views about what moral standards are correct, what morality is in the first place, and so on, and the discussion of them can summarize each of those views with links to other articles for more detailed reading on them."

This outline is a good one, but not descriptive of the present article. Pfhorrest's main points for what should be in the article are:

(i) different views about when someone is an appropriate target of moral judgement (i.e. morally responsible) or not, and why.

{ii) particular views about what moral standards are correct, what morality is in the first place, and so on, and the discussion of them can summarize each of those views

(iii) links to other articles for more detailed reading on them

Instead, the present article is a rehash of the arguments about free will and its various schools: Metaphysical libertarianism, Hard determinism, Hard incompatibilism, Compatibilism, and so forth. While the issue of moral responsibility is a non-starter if one takes the view that man has no ability to implement decisions, or perhaps even no ability to formulate decisions (making a discussion of this issue significant to moral responsibility), to make the entire article a footnote to this undecidable, largely linguistic debate is a disservice, and doesn't come close to Pfhorrest's outline of what this article should contain. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Vargas (2013). Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0191655775. Without recourse to the intuitive and powerful picture of ourselves as agents with metaphysically robust alternative possibilities, it isn't clear what, if anything, justifies our holding one another responsible.

Manuel Vargas (2013). Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0191655775. When we hold one another responsible, we participate in a system of practices, attitudes, and judgments that support a special kind of self-governance...It is the tenability of this view...that provides the basis......avoid, or at least forestall, the view that responsibility is a mere illusion.

Manuel Vargas (2013). Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0191655775. We could, for example, reject out of hand that we are casually embedded, a part of the larger causal order of the universe. Brews ohare (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Vargas (2013). Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN 0191655775. For example, one could be worried about the consequences of reductionism of the mental (including whether our minds do anything, or whether they are epiphenomenal byproducts of more basic causal processes). Alternately, one might be worried that specific results in some or another science (usually, neurology but sometimes psychology) show that we lack some crucial power necessary for moral responsibility....Once we see what responsibility really requires, many of our diverse concerns about it will be allayed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I subscribe to footnote 3 above, but the point of these quotes is not to endorse this viewpoint nor Varga's presentation, but to point out that there is a lot more to this topic than the current article attempts to present. Brews ohare (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Stub-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• Stub-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles