A response to my question at: http://thoughtfulapples.com/?p=45

1)Yes-Basically, this is necessity when it comes to responsibility. If you believe that no one is responsible for his actions (determined) we can’t even talk about these questions.

Then we have questions 1-2:
2)Yes-The idea behind this question is that you “change into a different person” when you drink. So if you are a different person, then you “shouldn’t be responsible for your actions”. Sort of like how Mr.Jekyll is a different person from Mr.Hyde. However, if you know the results of taking the potion (or drinking in this case) then you must be responsible for what follows. Knowledge of what will happen afterward is key in this case. As far as it goes for us though, the effects of alcohol are well known, so we do have an idea of what we are getting ourselves into when we drink.
3) Here’s where it gets tricky, in the second case the person is responsible because he knowingly drinks the potion causing him to act in a crazed way. In this scenario, he doesn’t even make that choice, he is just put into a different state of mind.

Consider this scenario: We have an animal that goes into a blind rage whenever it sees the color red. When it is in rage it can’t think or reason, it just goes wild and kills things. Of course, if we saw this in society, we would inevitably do something (blind it, colorblind it, imprison it). But that is to sidestep the question of responsibility.

To answer this question, we have to establish whether we judge someone based on their overall (drunk and not drunk) personality, or on their choices.

If we judge based on their overall personality, we would have to condemn Person A, because his personality in his drunken state led to killing someone. A repercussion his sober state has to deal with.

If we judge based on people’s choices (sober version). Well, in this scenario, his sober state had no weight on the choices of his drunken state. So i suppose we wouldn’t be able to say that he chose to kill that person, so we would have to let him go.

Aaaannnddd….sorry guys, I don’t think I have a good answer for this right now. I know I’m wimping away from the problem, but I feel like I could build upon this one much more.

4)Yes-This case seems to pull a “understandable action” sort of scenario. In this case, we can understand why Person A did it, we might even say that it’s perfectly understandable that he did it. However the fact is he did do it, and he did have the choice to do it. And a choice between two evils is still a choice, so he must take responsibility for that choice.
5)Person A wants to kill Person B. He drives out and is on his way to kill Person B, but is so nervous that his hands shake, and he lets go of the parking brake which in turn causes the car to roll down a hill and hit a person. That person happens to be Person B. Person B then subsequently dies.

Directly, No. Even though I want to say his intent to kill the guy should play a role in deciding responsibility, I can’t say that it IS what killed Person B. It may as well been a “lucky accident” for Person B to die. If anyone other than Person B was in that scenario (say Person C), you wouldn’t say that it was Person A’s intention to killed him, would you?

6)No-The idea here seems to be intention to kill someone. If there seems to be direct intent to kill, then clearly it would be person A’s responsibility. However in this scenario, it seems that Person A could have just been a construction worker working with dangerous equipment. Or perhaps a champion hole digger who laid out signs.
7)No- it’s not her responsibility. Here’s why. In that scenario every man in the area has to make a choice, and many choose not to. It feels like bad taste to use a good quote in a bad example… but: Even if there is an open door in front of you, you are the person who has to walk through it. The situation only “opens the door” its the man’s choice to walk through it.

Advertisement