Warning: H*lm*t content

David Trudgett wrote:
"Bleve" writes:

This calls up the issue of responsibility.

You should recall that we were discussing withholding medical care
(perhaps only if the person can't afford it), not personal
responsibility per se.

You make a choice, and "society" makes a choice about what
it's prepared to pay for. If (and this is a hyothetical, I'm not
advocating it as such at this time) the law (the arm of society)
says "thou shalt wear a helmet approved by standard X when riding
a bicycle", and an individual makes a choice not to wear it -
and something goes wrong, and the non-wearer then ends up with
some injury that the helmet would have prevented (yes, I know ...
this is a hypothetical ...) then at some point "society" would
be justified in saying "you broke the rules, you're on your own".
This, of course, would not be an issue of accident, but rather
deliberate breach of the rules, and the consequences of same.

So, if your choice is such that it exceeds what
society is prepared to pay for (ie: breaks the rules), then you have to
make
your own arrangements in case of accident.

The upshot of this aspect of the law is that it has injustice built
right into its very foundation. Those who do suffer from a real and
unavoidable lapse in concentration will be judged in the same way as
the liar and the person who could care less about safety.

You're confusing responsibility with retribution, and event with
intent. Accidents are not the same thing as deliberate breaches
of the rules. Determining which is which is the hard part. It
is one thing to play cricket in the front yard and break
a window with an accidentally overplayed shot, it is another thing
altogether
to walk up to a window with a cricket bat and smash it.

It doesn't matter what excuses get cooked up for them. When I
crashed my bike into another rider, it was my fault for not paying
attention. I had 3 good excuses, but it was my responsibilty. I
was tired, I had a lapse of concentration and I was unlucky. So
what?

So, unless you are lying, or you have a machine-like perfect control
over concentration, you are not morally responsible for the
accident. This is the basic meaning of "accident", after all.

It was an accident, but I was still the responsible party. As such,
I paid for the damage. That's called "Accepting responsibility".
When I was a kid, I broke (by accident) a few windows. I paid
to have them fixed. Sure, I didn't *mean* to put cricketballs
through them, but it was my responsibility, as I caused the
event to occur.

So, don't let me get in the way of your being a martyr. If you really
want to blame yourself, then go ahead. After all, you're the only one
who really knows how guilty you really are. No judge, no jury can know
it, but *you* can.

I'm not being a martyr, I'm accepting responsibility for the
consequences
of my actions.

It was still my fault and I fully expected to be judged accordingly.
As such, I paid for all the damage and did my best to make sure my
crashee was ok.

As any decent person would. This is a different matter from moral
responsibility.

Responsibility is not the same as punitive retribution. that's
where intent comes in (which is why we have a legal system, imperfect
as it is ...).