Best Location For An Owl House

Y there a responsible other than causality?

question in the question box.

causation is synonymous with responsibility?

Does it mean that one wonders if this is the cause that has produced such an effect which is the origin of responsibility?

But then we must also ask: what is it that the "causal ?

Anyway the question is too classic (millions of pages to the deal have probably already been written), and yet far from being resolved (see the discussion on whether to try the crazy) .

However, Dr. Philo has committed to meet its honorable readers and it is not one to shrink from its responsibility

talking causality How does one? Of cause efficient? The related cause will ? Is this a topic that has been in full knowledge event, or was he ignorant of the effect, or incapable of being aware of what he doing?

- It's been a long time does not touch the court that the animal has caused injury, and is no longer considered (or not) the criminally insane.

-> So the attribution of responsibility requires not only that we have done what gives rise to liability, but we still have the desired .

So few answers:

1 - There is liability only where there was something that was done involving the human will - or divine.

And so the fact strictly natural (the earthquake that devastated an area, the storm that sank the boat) does not give rise to any liability.

Similarly, the chance is not responsible: the fact of winning a fortune at Loto has absolutely no meaning in this field.

2-Ask the question of liability, it raises the question: when can we say that we actually wanted what happened. We remember the formula "Responsible but not guilty ", which meant that there formal responsibility but not real, when you do not really want what happened. Judged at this time Duch, the torturer of Cambodia, which as the Nazi executioners pleads for obedience exculpate himself. They did, yes - but they did not want.

3 - More interesting, this observation is consistent with Ricoeur to say that this issue requires resolution prior to another question: who is the real agent of action? Or if you prefer: Who has done what one is talking about?

The Selling Of Organs Pros And Cons

Must be from people who come to play their dog on my property?

Hello Dr. Philo, here: we have a great ground we have with love. As it is not closed two people go there to play their dog. The first time I informed them that this was private property, they did not. But since they come every day.

- Is it normal that it annoys me at the highest point or is it selfishness.

- Why am I so hard to tell them to leave?

- Do I feel guilty to have so much property that we have yet so easily won?

Isabelle (Note this Post )

Here's a question that might as well be addressed to the lawyer and / or psychologist.

If it is for the philosopher, then it is our relationship to private property that is queried

Because if we leave (temporarily) aside the second question, we are dealing with an issue typically Rousseau.

is indeed Rousseau wrote that private property is defined by excluding the right of others to do what they want from our well : property before a sense is a reality characterized by the exclusion of others. My property is the domain of my private life, only entered those I authorized. And not all their dogs. And especially not if it is to defile their droppings.

The question is not so much to know why it annoys you because, given what we just said property, and your invaders being duly warned that they were on the you, they do not take into account but rather how it is that you feel "guilty" of owning this property, "and why you reluctant to enforce your rights .

So we can try several answers:

- As soon as you are without thinking rather Rousseau (1), and you get the idea that the private property n is not something really legitimate I mean that mankind could live without private property there.

- En suite, as Rousseau also says (it's in the Social Contract this time), the property must be proportionate to human needs and capacities of work (he is still the land ownership and thus the field size required to support the farmer).

However, as you point out, this great land is commensurate with your work since you bought your due compensation. This work is just upstream of the possession and not after (as is the field that is legitimized by the farm work).

- Finally, that this way of excluding people is an attitude you unsavory morally . Even if you are unsure of wanting to love our neighbor as ourselves, yet we have an old fund that we recommend human hospitality for the passing stranger. It is believed that the Greeks: the beggar who is at your door may be disguised as a God who comes to the testing of hospitality.

So if your invaders - and their dog - are gods, let them.

If not, then plant a fence and buy a gun.

(1) See the text :

The first one, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying: This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors would not have spared the human race who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits belong to all, and that the land belongs to nobody. (Discourse on the Origin of Property, 2 nd part)