English language

How to pronounce responsible for in English?

Full Transcript

what I want to talk to you about sir
tonight is equality and more
specifically the relation between
equality and responsibility and I'd like
to start with an example suppose that
you and I are both farmers and suppose
that we start in a situation of equality
so our farms are have our equal size and
suppose if we have the same amount of
wealth at the start of the year but
suppose that through the course of a
year you work really hard whereas I'm
extremely lazy and I don't do anything
now predictably at the end of the year
there is then going to be inequality
between us right so your wealth is going
to increase because you work very hard
and my wealth is not going to increase
because I'm very lazy and now the
question I'm interested in is is that
inequality just or is it unjust and I
think most of us would say that
inequality is just so in other words
justice doesn't require that the state
compensates me for having less than you
at the end of the year and why is that
well because I'm responsible for having
been lazy all year right so I'm
responsible for the choices that I made
that resulted in now might in mine now
being less wealthy than you are all
right so that's the first example second
example is a little bit different so
suppose again that you and I are both
farmers suppose that we start with farms
of the same size and suppose that we
start with the same amount of wealth but
now suppose that we both work equally
hard throughout the year but the thing
that happens now is that at the end of
the year there is a massive earthquake
that destroys my farm now I think so now
again the question is is the inequality
that results that between us that
results from that is that inequality
just or is that inequality unjust so in
this case does justice require that the
state compensates me for now being less
wealthy than you as a result of that
earthquake
and I think most of us would say well in
this case the state is required to
compensate me and the reason for that
seems to be that I'm not responsible for
the earthquake right so now the
inequality is not a result of
responsible choices choices that I
myself have made and therefore the
inequality is unjust now what that
suggests is that we accept the following
sort of view a following view about
equality and the view has two parts the
first part says that inequality is just
if those who have less than others are
themselves responsible for having less
than others right so justice doesn't
require that the state compensates
people for inequality if the people who
have less are themselves responsible for
having less but on the other hand
inequality is unjust if those who have
less than others are not themselves
responsible for having less than others
right so in the case where I'm lazy I'm
responsible for having less so justice
doesn't require that I'm compensated in
the case where my farm is hit by an
earthquake I'm not responsible for the
inequality and therefore justice
requires that I am compensated right so
I think that is a very natural view to
hold about inequality about the justice
or injustice of inequality but as a
philosopher I want to ask a question
about a presupposition of this view so
I'm interested in something that this
view presupposes because the view
presupposes that we are often
responsible for what we do and you might
think actually that maybe we're not
always responsible for what we do and
maybe we're even never responsible for
what we do so here's an example that
might help to bring out why you might
doubt that we are responsible what we do
suppose that I am hypnotized and suppose
that I do certain things as a result of
being hypnotized now in that case I
think we would all say that I'm not
responsible for doing the things I do
and why is that well because that's
because I'm doing the things I do as a
also having certain mental states as a
result of having certain beliefs and
desires that were installed in me by the
hypnosis so I'm not responsible for what
I do when I'm when I when I've been
hypnotized because I'm not responsible
for the mental states that I have while
I'm under hypnosis now philosophers have
tried to generalize that kind of insight
and turn it into a general argument
against the existence of responsibility
so what I want to do now is look at that
argument against the existence of
responsibility the argument has six
steps and then at the end the conclusion
is going to be that no one is ever
responsible for what they do so here's
the first step we do what we do partly
because of the way we are at least in
certain crucial mental respects such as
our beliefs our desires our character
and so on right so why am i giving this
talk here to you today well because I
believe that there is a TEDx events
going on in coning in tonight and
because I want to tell you about the
relation between equality and
responsibility right so why do I do what
I do that's at least partly because of
the way I am in mental respects and that
seems to generalize to all actions so
all actions are such that we do them at
least partly because of the way we are
in mental respect okay so that's the
first premise and that seems a very
plausible premise second premise to be
responsible for what we do we must be
responsible for the way we are at least
in those mental respects now that also
seems plausible and that's shown by the
hypnosis example that I started with
right so in the hypnosis example I'm not
responsible for what I do why am I not
responsible what I do because I'm not
responsible for the way I am in these
crucial mental respects right I'm not
responsible for having the beliefs and
desires that I have and other examples
seems to show it seems to show the same
sort of thing so why I yank children not
responsible for what they do
well plausibly that's because then
responsible for the way they are and why
our kleptomaniacs not responsible for
stealing well because they're not
responsible for having the mental states
that make them steal right so this also
seems to be a very plausible premise the
third premise really results from a
question and the question is how do we
become responsible for the way we are
and a very natural answer to that
question is well we become responsible
for the way we are by doing something to
make ourselves the way we are right that
seems a very natural answer to that
question and if you accept that answer
then it seems you're going to have to
accept the third premise and the third
premise says that to be responsible for
the way we are we must have done
something in the past for which we must
also have been responsible to make
ourselves the way we are right now the
fourth premise and the fourth premise
really just applies the second premise
to the third premise you might say the
fourth premise says that if we were
responsible for doing something in the
past to make ourselves the way we are
the way we are then we must have been
responsible for the way we were debt
right so if we were responsible for
doing something in the past to make
ourselves the way we are then we must
have been responsible for the way we
were when we performed that responsible
action and now you can probably see
where the argument is going right so to
have been received it's a kind of regret
so to have been responsible for the way
we were then we must have done something
even earlier for which we were also
responsible to make ourselves the way we
were back then and so on all the way to
infinity
so in other words to be responsible for
anything that we do we must perform an
infinite series of self-forming actions
now of course the problem is that we
just can't perform an infinite series of
actions human beings have finite lives
right we don't have an infinite amount
of time so we can't perform the infinite
series of actions that's required for us
to be responsible for anything that we
do and so then the conclusion of the
argument is
all of this shows that we are never
responsible for what we do okay right so
now let's return to equality so the
example of the farmers seemed to show
that inequality is unjust if those who
have less than others are not
responsible for having less than others
right that's the thing we started with
now we have the conclusion of this
argument about responsibility and the
conclusion is that we are never
responsible for what we do now if we put
those two things together we get the
conclusion that justice requires
complete equality right and why is that
well because inequality is unjust if
we're not responsible for the inequality
but we're never responsible for anything
so that means that inequality is always
unjust so in other words justice
requires complete equality okay so but
now we might think again right so now we
might return to the example that I
started with so the example of the two
farmers suppose you and I are both
farmers you work hard every day and I'm
lazy every day and at the end of the
year you are much wealthier than I am if
justice requires complete equality then
what will happen at the end of the year
if the state implemented this view on
justice is that the state would come to
you and it would tell you look we need
to take away some of your additional
wealth and we need to give it through
bath who's been lazy over here right now
that seems that seems very
counterintuitive but that the important
thing here is that we should think about
the effect that that's going to have on
you right so if the state takes away any
additional earnings that you have
because you work hard and just
redistribute them to people who do
nothing then you you're not going to
have strong incentives to work hard and
if this policy is implemented more
generally in society then incentives to
work hard are we are going to become
very very weak obviously they're not all
based on wealth but nevertheless they're
going to be a lot weaker than they are
now and the effect of that is going to
be that our society as a whole is going
to become
a lot less wealthy than it is now and
that might actually be bad for everybody
right it's not just bad for you but it
might also be bad for me
if my society as a whole becomes less
wealthy than it is now and that's
because there's going to be less money
up for redistribution if that happens so
I think that if we change our view about
responsibility in the way that's
suggested by the argument we should also
change our view about equality and we
should accept the following view
inequality is just if it benefits the
people who have the least right so now
we break the link between the justice of
equality and responsibility and we say
inequality is just if it benefits the
people who have the least
how might inequality benefit the people
who have the least well it it can do so
by providing incentives to work hard if
there is at least some inequality that
will provide an incentive for people to
work hard that will increase the total
wealth of our society and then we can
use at least some of the increase in
wealth - via taxation and redistribution
to benefit the people who have the least
and therefore if there is this kind of
incentive providing inequality everyone
will be better off compared to the
situation where there is complete social
and economic equality so my overall
conclusion is that if we want the future
to be more equal we should change our
beliefs about responsibility thank you

what I want to talk to you about sir

Toggle Transcript

responsible for::adjective | Spocien Dictionary

responsible for

adjective

/rɪ'spɑnsəbəl_fɔr/

being the agent or cause

Type	Words
Synonyms	responsible

termites were responsible for the damage.

How to pronounce responsible for in English?

responsible for::adjective | Spocien Dictionary

abandonment

Related words

Related

Subscribe to our Newslatter