Bear,Originally Posted by Polarbear1605
You may be right that no deliberate application of risk analysis is being applied. However,I am not so sure that what is happening is dogmatic. I believe (and am supported by a fair amount of research reported in the safety engineering literature) that each individual has a different level of risk tolerance/risk aversion. (I do not really want to get sidetracked into a nature/nurture argument and discuss whether this is innate or acquired.) Having differing levels of risk tolerance suggests we also have different needs and, therefore, techniques for risk mitigation. Compare, for example, Montgomery's and Patton's campaigns in N. Africa and the WWII ETO. I submit the action to mitigate risk occurs almost reflexively rather than deliberately and, therefore, is not dogmatic.
Works for me. I was trying to make a distinction between the individual (a natural person, by the way) and the collective (an artificial person). However, I do have some qualms about what to make of the status of that artificial person. I find it hard to cash out exactly what those qualms are and why they bother me, but for starters, I question the applicability of the analogy found in St. Augustine that takes the acceptability of personal self defense and maps it to national self defense. I think that much of my concern stems from two sources: the concept of a moral agent and the notion that praiseworthiness/blameworthiness requires some ability to act after deliberation. Artificial persons are not able to deliberate in my worldview and are not "really" moral agents as a result.
On a different tack, I think the distinction between command responsibility and responsible command is tied to the difference between positional (public) rights/duties/morality and personal (or private) rights/duties/morality.
Bookmarks