So, last night I finally checked off a movie off my must see list--Super Size Me. Charming movie, but I don't really want to talk just about it, per se.

What I'm more interested is something along the philosophical lines of how far entities can reasonably be expected to engage in personal responsibility, and enjoy freedom of choice. I've always been a big believer in this, and it's something that I think makes a society strong, when its citizens can exercise common sense to come to make wise decisions.

I've had debates with people about this before, and the opposing view generally goes along the lines of "People are dumb sheep, and they need an authority to protect them from bad practices out there." That's a simple explanation, but hopefully we can expand this discussion out.

This could branch out into a lot of subjects, but we'll see where this leads for now, and go with the flow.

This might be harsh but if stupid people do stupid things and die from it (example: eating McDonald's every day for the rest of your life and wonder why you have heart problems) that's their own fault and I don't feel sorry for them. We should help more people who are in situations that they CAN'T control. I believe that letting stupid people die from their mistakes would only make a society stronger. Harsh? Yes.

To stick with "supersize me" as a frame of reference, everyone knows eating fast food every day, sometimes two or three times, will make an individual fat. This issue is really more about laziness and overindulgence imo. Sure, it tastes good, so people want to eat more and more of it. Then, when they're fat, they claim it isn't their fault. It is their fault, no question.

As far as people being sheep, well, whose to say who is supposed to do the leading? That's a ridiculous stance, again imo.

What do you do when personal responsibility runs up against responsibilities to others?

For example, idiot eats too much fast food and gets fat. I don't think they should be permitted to sue McDonalds for their own idiocy. However, their fat ass is going to make health costs higher for all of us, so we as a society have a stake in their idiocy.

Should we as a society act to regulate behaviors of others that, upon first blush appear to hurt only the individual, but under closer examination hurt society as a whole?

Examples inlcude:

Cigarette smoking (and second hand smoke)
Obesity
Inefficient automobiles
Drug abuse
General willfull ignorance (catchall category)

--PunkDavid

i havent, nor will i, sue wendy, the burger king or ronald

i would be a complete douchebag or idiot if i did so

i've always had issue with this myself. specifically when people sue gun manufacturers over someone being shot with one of their guns. there are a lot of states that are cracking down on this and not allowing the litigation to continue. it's assinine just like people suing mcdonald's is.

I don't think so. To answer yes is to strip the individual of their individuality and reduce them to merely their positive or negative effect on society.

oh yea, i have no qualms about suing dolly madison or hostess

There are some hazy areas. For instance if a company makes efforts to conceal information or data that shows it's product is harmful, how can you make an informed decision and be personally responsable if you cant get all the information...or worse, that you think you already have all the information, but really dont. Where does the responsability lie then? Are you still an idiot then?

if somethings too good, odds are somethings wrong with it

all those fancy schmancy electrical/hybrid cars, good for the environment until they discover the major amounts of emp's you absorb and get mutated

What sort of Super powers might I acquire from this mutation?

thats what they dont want "us" to know

AM/FM Radio
CD Player
Airbags...

The works, I think.

good point.

in addition to what you said, in law school in my country we study the theory of extreme causality. basically, if we go backwards in the causality chain, the creator, or nature would be the criminals behind every crime, because they created man, who built the gun, who sold the gun to the guy who pulled the trigger and killed someone. the law draws the line, establishing that the cause of something is what directly influenced in the occurence of the result.

Here we use the ideas of "direct cause" and "proximate cause". You could write a book about what proximate cause might or might not be.

--PunkDavid

Nick, I'd like to hear what you feel the role of corporate responsibility is. Where does the responsibility of a McDonalds or Philip Morris end and where does personal responsibility start?

I'm all for corporate responsibilty. I think one of the most just ways to accomplish this (provided the corporation is acting in what is deemed an irresponsible way, of course), is through freedom of speech via PR campaigns, such as Super Size Me; informing and attempting to convince the consumer about what you feel is a wrongdoing. Then, they get hit in the wallet from a loss of sales?

Is it an easy path? Not always.

I'm glad you stopped by, you should enhance the discussion.

Well said GH!

The responsibilities lie in both. It's not a mutually exclusive activity when it comes to life choices. Regardless, however, it ultimately means more when the person acts out on their choice. The burden is on the individual.

To have it the other way around is to embrace the chains and shackles akin to those described and possibly foreseen in 1984.

And let's be honest, communism, on any level, sucks.

God bless,

Jared