Talk:Moral responsibility

Personal Responsibility vs Moral Responsibility
Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I don't do this very often.

"Personal Responsibility" redirects to "Moral Responsibility."

There is a conservative version of "personal responsibility" floating around in the USA these days. It is the idea that a person should take full responsibility for caring for himself, not expecting others to take care of him, and not blaming them if they don't. It can expand to explicitly having no responsibility for others, all the way to "every man for himself." I think it's related to neoliberalism and libertarianism. It is the opposite of "social responsibility", and doesn't seem consonant with "moral responsibility" as described in this Wikipedia article.

Should there be an article for this? Where should it go?

I haven't found good sources for this yet... I started here.

LeeLance (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(later) The History page for Personal Responsibility shows that in 2010, somebody entered this definition: "a conscious choice of taking charge of one's life through responsible decisions, actions and disavowing oneself from the crutch of victimization" I would not put it that way, but that is similar to how some folks think about it. LeeLance (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Conversation
Moral values on responsibility 27.123.138.179 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Temporal causality
Though as of yet time travel is firmly in the realms of science fiction, it is a valid concern that eventually or by some freak of nature a method is discovered. In the current political climate the mere existence of a time machine would be a terrible shock and potentially cause upheval in physics as well as economics and sociology due to the ripple effects. Imagine if in 1943 Heisenberg didn't pursue D2O as a moderator, or in 1939 Einstein decided to warn Roosevelt against the construction of an atomic bomb in case the Earth's atmosphere ignited based on a miscalculation. A tiny change could have unpredictable results, even if that change was well meaning and with the best intentions. Should scientists working on such things be careful and only publish once they have established someone else has already discovered the same effect or principle through other means? 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)