Note: The “I” and “you” below for argument purposes and are not really myself and yourself. Please don’t take it personally. Unless I’m describing things you’ve done, in which case do take it personally, and do something about it.
If I were to run at you, screaming and shouting, getting into your face and hurling obscenities, would that be OK? -probably not.
Perhaps if I were mentally unable to control my actions? Is it still my fault then? If I had taken incapacitating drugs then it would be, even though I was not in control of my actions, because I could have done something about it when I was in control. I didn’t have to take the drugs. Even if I’m incapable of harming you, it is still not acceptable behaviour.
But assume instead that I was just like that (sometimes I want to be); it isn’t really my fault. In that case imagine I have a minder, someone to make sure I don’t hurt myself or others. Would it be OK for them to stand by, perhaps tut, and explain “Oh it’s not you, he just does that?” Should you be required to have a civil and polite conversation with my minder whilst I abuse you?
Or would you consider it rude, offensive, marginally criminal and/or negligent? I somehow think so. And it isn’t OK when it is an animal is doing it either. Say, a dog.
Dogs clearly have a reduced level of personal responsibility. Our society has a lot of complex rules that we don’t know how to explain to them; we don’t know that they would be capable of following the rules even if we could. When a dog poops, it doesn’t have to pick it up – we do. We have responsibility for them. It is written into law that we must prevent them from being “aggressive, or dangerously out of control”. In more egalitarian terms which might extend to a combined human/animal morality, we are acting as their representative for situations in which they are not capable of representing themselves.
When we define ourselves, we think not just of our own physical body, but the sum of all of the things we do or cause to be. If a person leaves a trap in a field, and it kills somebody, they killed that person even though they weren’t physically there. Similarly, a parent may take at least some responsibility for the actions of their children; they have imbibed them with some of their knowledge and being (for good or ill, by chance or design). The phenotype is our biological self; the extended phenotype is our effect on the world. We have responsibility for both, when it is within our power to understand how we influence the world.
That means, when your dog is aggressive to me, and you permit this, then you are being aggressive to me. Certainly this is true in reverse; if I were to kick your dog you would take it as a personal attack on yourself. Aggression is not acceptable behaviour. At the best you should expect disdain in return for not raising the dispute beyond aggressive displays. Yet, when dogs are involved, many (not all or even most) owners are completely oblivious to the disregard they have shown for our societal pacts against aggression. Indeed, they expect me to be polite, even cheery, as they point out that little fluffy doesn’t bite, he’s just chasing the bike, its nothing personal.
Its personal. If your dog is aggressive to me, you are aggressive to me. You have both the power, and the responsibility, to prevent the situation, and yet chose not to do it.
A dog has responsibility for itself to the limits of its ability. They clearly can understand physical and verbal communication, they know that actions have consequences, even if not fully understood. But where their understanding ends, our responsibility begins. They are our extended phenotype and for good or bad, we are our dogs are they are us.
In other words, distributed processing sucks. If you cannot trust your “other” fluffy bodied brain to follow your intentions, then you will need physical intervention for coordinated action. Or in other, other words, if your dog attacks people, put it on a lead!
I recently decided to look into the “cycle to work” scheme. After spending several hours reading the fine print, I’ve concluded that “they” (the ever-present government ministers, the taxman, the system in general) are wearing their underpants on their head.
The links above are full of things like “Save up to 50%”! Wow. I’d love to. But there are quite a few catches, the clincher being this one:
Arrangements at the end of the 12 month loan period
All payments made over the repayment period of 12 months are for the LOAN of the bicycle and accessories. However, at the end of the loan period the University may decide to offer to sell the equipment loaned to you at a fair market rate. Unfortunately this can’t be confirmed until the end of the 12 month period.
This is standard, its not a University of Bristol thing. So what does that MEAN? Basically, you have to pay more at the end of the contract, for “your” bike – so how much? Many people say they paid a “nominal fee”, £5, £50, that sort of thing. BUT. The government decided that the second hand bike was worth 25% of its FULL VALUE. Now, this is not a bad valuation. What is bad is that you have to pay this to your employer to get “your” bike from them. They can’t even waive the fee because the taxman will charge them.
So what is the saving? I’m paying the higher tax band so it works out that I save 40% on the shop price. But I have to pay the University 25% back, making it 15 off%. Not that great, but still something, right? Again with the BUT. But you can’t buy just anything from just anywhere; sale items typically get a 10% markup in this scheme due to the costs of being in it. And the final but: you are required to get insurance, because it is not your bike, but the Universities. That is going to be 5%, right there.
And there we are: I save, all in, nothing. Better yet, someone on a lower income would save less tax and could be out of pocket!
There are a couple of caveats: potentially, the company doesn’t have to charge you the full 25%, and if they feel nice, they might just “gift” it to you and charge the tax on the value (which might be 10% of the total price). But they might not. Are they perhaps making saving cuts at the moment? Do you trust them? Really? Really?
So the people who introduced this rule are basically wearing their underpants* on their head. They know should cycle, so they give us an incentive. They make a law giving us a tax discount. People must be covered up, so they make a law that we have to wear underpants. But the rules say that the bike is the companies property, so they tell them they must account for their assets. Underpants “must always be worn”. So the incentive is lost, and better yet, lots of money is wasted on the scheme. So they wear the underpants on their head, better yet covering their eyes so they can’t see the other naked people.
If only they said how much it would save in advance, at least we could appreciate the benefits (or otherwise). As it is anyone sensible sees the worst case scenario and fears it. Uncertainty is no incentive.
* The analogy permits women to continue wearing bras, provided that they also wear them on their head just like in Weird Science.