From Bruce Buchanan (950206.2355 EST)
Bill Powers (950206.1600 MST) writes:
If these are intrinsic values for mammals, then all baby mammals would
be born having such values and nobody would have to teach the babies,
reward them, or punish them into having these values.The fact that children (apparently) have to be taught so-called
responsibility is direct evidence that this and related concepts are not
products of evolution or inheritance.
But many inherited features only develop over time, some through critical
phases and experiences in relationships with others. The capacity for
human social interaction, like that for language, can be inherent but
require the cultural setting to develop.
responsibility
etc is a human invention, passed along and modified or reinvented by
each new generation, each new group within each new generation.
This may be a statement of strong belief but it is hardly based on science.
Science itself is also invention - conceptual invention - as well as
discovery, and only possible within a framework of cultural assumptions and
acceptance, cf. the theories of evolution and of relativity.
Responsibility is an attitude, practice and concept at least as fundamental
as science, i.e. a cultural assumption necessary to science.
This idea of "shared notions of social relations and expectations" is a
myth.
What does this mean? A myth is a story and/or belief which serves to
explain and support habits and customs and rituals which have become
important parts of social life. A myth is not simply a phony or false idea.
It may be a belief which supports the structure of a civilization.
What I've been trying to get across is that responsibility is whatever
you decide it is. It's like "family values," which are also whatever you
decide they are.
Whatever Who decides? Does this apply to responsibility as a scientist?
What about the integrity of meaning of language as the basis for trust?
There is nothing mysterious here, no mysterious forces
from evolution or "society" that lead us to adopt responsibilities or
values. There are only interactions with other people,
Who said there is anything mysterious? There are the requirements of
common life which lead most people to develop higher level reference values
which have some features in common with others - otherwise they are not
very useful, which is a common enough problem.
And interactions with other people cannot be dealt with and dismissed as
"only", for they are not confined in their effects to the level of the
individual alone. They involve many ramifying implications for reputation,
trust and precedent which make social acceptance and survival possible,
which often enough may escape us and come back to haunt us. Why else would
hard-headed executive concern themselves with "corporate responsibilities"?
What we need to understand is how people interact with the people around
them. We can't understand this by looking at any particular values,
beliefs, customs, rules, and so forth.
It depends partly on our objectives at the time, but we can scarely rule
out serious consideration of the beliefs and customs of others, or confine
attention to particular levels of organization or abstraction. We may in
practice need
to pay particular attention to what may be the higher level criteria which
govern language and the decisions of social existence for most of the other
people we deal with, i.e. which make a predictable social milieu possible.
It is not necessary to look at particular values or at any particular
language to make the general observation that all human beings grow in
circumstances which shape their values as well as give them language to
learn, and which make the continuance of their culture possible.
If people do arrive at accomodations
with each other, it isn't because they inherit a tendency to do so, but
because of how living control systems work.
Same thing in different words.
The moment you start trying to explain why taking certain
responsibilities and showing certain social behaviors is good and
natural, you've admitted that they are arbitrary.
Some people mistakenly try to justify their personal beliefs in universal
terms. But that is a different point. It is arbitrary to insist that there
is no such thing as responsibility which is not arbitrary.
Why values are adopted and maintained by the individual is a question
related mainly to the reference criteria which may or may not be clarified
by them at higher levels, but they will be arbitrary only if the individual
decides to accept them as given, without further consideration, i.e. as
arbitrary. Certainly an arbitrary external valuation in that regard is not
part of any scientific insight in the matter.
You're just being an example of a person trying to change other people's
behavior to fit certain private goals.
The source of the information to make this judgement, which blocks further
observation, is very much a question. For my part, a private goal, if you
will, is to identify a methodology potentially useful for searching for
higher common values in terms of which some of the many conflicts of our
so-called civilization might be reconciled and resolved. If such concepts
and values are indeed inventions, they may be highly creative ones and
cannot be fully assessed or dismissed by considerations derived from
mechanisms at lower levels.
Anyway, these are my contributions to ex cathedra pronouncements 
!
Cheers!
Bruce B.