Consent

[The Meromorph]

I agree with Mero (except the upside-the-head bit, which I think was a bit harsh).

I believe that a person chooses to run a red light or not. It is a choice, a very selfish one as it risks the safety of others, and the person in question is responsible for that choice.

You are right, it was a bit harsh.  I apologize to En_Route.   Have some cake, old chap... 

Thank you for the feedback, beloved sibling...

[En_Route]

I think  the belief in the  responsibility of   human agents for their actions is highly adaptive. Formost people  it may seem self- evident, and in general those who espouse it here have tended (  with respect) to simply assert its existence as an article of faith. Butnthe fact temains that we cannot create ourselves from scratch and the beginning must either dictate what follows ( in a universe of rigid cause and effect) or else the  sequence between the begiining and what follows is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of serendipity.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think  the belief in the  responsibility of   human agents for their actions is highly adaptive.

I believe that humans are highly adaptive to assign responsibility to external agents...

[Aggie]

I think  the belief in the  responsibility of   human agents for their actions is highly adaptive. Formost people  it may seem self- evident, and in general those who espouse it here have tended (  with respect) to simply assert its existence as an article of faith. Butnthe fact temains that we cannot create ourselves from scratch and the beginning must either dictate what follows ( in a universe of rigid cause and effect) or else the  sequence between the begiining and what follows is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of serendipity.

I understand your argument from a philosophical perspective, especially with respect to the sense of 'responsibility' in context of post-life divine judgement as referred to in earlier posts. I don't disagree with the principles for the purposes of the conclusions reached. However, I don't feel that this argument is practically applicable in the context of inter-human interactions. 

With respect to judgement by human agents in our normal human lifespan, in some cases and/or to some degree moral responsibility is irrelevant. If you run a red light and are caught, you face judgement and responsibility in the philosophical sense is a moot point. Law are set as a method of social control, and we generally are programmed to avoid unpleasant outcomes such as those which sometimes result from breaking the law.  I don't want to open up a conversation on the penal system etc. at this moment, but speaking very broadly, if someone is exhibiting behaviour which is socially unacceptable and has been legislated against, the punishment can be viewed as a method of either reducing re-occurrence of that behaviour by attaching a disincentive to it, or (in the case of jail time) removing that person from society for a period of time to prevent re-occurrence.

I personally believe that there is value in placing some consideration on an offender's personal life history and socioeconomic circumstances during sentencing, where a better long-term outcome is likely to result from doing so, but I don't think that clear alternatives to standard sentencing procedures are available in most settings.  I've read about some prospective successes in certain populations where socioeconomic conditions are the predominant factors in criminality (Canada's First Nations populations, for example).

David Eagleman has some interesting perspectives on neurolaw, which considers how neurological differences and physiological conditions change one's culpability. These same factors can influence consent, IMHO.

[Opsa]

That's interesting, and I get it. Another thing that may change one's reaction would be personal experience. If you have ever nearly been crashed into by someone running a red light, or have had a relative or friend injured or killed by someone running a red light, your conscientiousness about running lights will be heightened. I personally have been alarmed by people running lights, and so I am careful not to run them, myself. I also would be less forgiving of anyone running one.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

...or stop signs; it stands to reason that any non-psychopathic* individual should learn this the hard way if unable to learn it otherwise. I imagine that (and this is a full guess) the likelihood of someone running a red light (or stop sign) grows if they are male and between 16 and 25, which would imply that testosterone would be a driver of such behavior, yet I wouldn't say that that exonerates responsibility from the driver.


*psychopaths have a very hard time learning from their mistakes, due to problems with the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex.

[Aggie]

I imagine that (and this is a full guess) the likelihood of someone running a red light (or stop sign) grows if they are male and between 16 and 25, which would imply that testosterone would be a driver of such behavior, yet I wouldn't say that that exonerates responsibility from the driver.

Testosterone and/or cat litter. There is some evidence that infection with Toxoplasma gondii can change human behaviour; specifically, it tends to encourage risk-taking behaviour and is correlated with traffic accidents in young males (infected rats get fearless and will openly approach cats).