Rational Anarchism The idea of rational anarchism is the idea that every human being is responsible for their actions. The one person who is doing the actions. The only one who can take the blame. This is an idea of a character in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He believes that no matter how it boils down, the person who the actions is responsible for what they did.
There are some cases where I am for this idea and there are some cases were I am against it. I believe that people are responsible for their actions but not all of them. They may be responsible for their actions but it wasn’t their choice to carry out the action. Ultimately, the responsibility is theirs. If you were a pilot that carried nukes and the army demanded you to drop the bomb on a defenseless village.
If you had a family back home that was living off your pay check and you decided not to bomb the target, your whole family would have to pay for what you thought was the right thing to do. What would the right choice be? To let your family suffer because you thought is it was wrong to bomb a certain place? This is like making someone choose between one form of torture or another, it doesn’t really matter which one you pick, you get hurt somehow in the end. Another example is when you don’t know that what you doing is wrong. Say you grew up on a different planet were it was acceptable to kill the weak people who had deformities. If you were to relocate to another place were it was wrong to kill the weak and you kill a person the first day you get there before you learn anything about any laws or anything.
Would that person be responsible for their actions? He wouldn’t the faintest idea of the laws in his new environment. It could have been just his natural instincts telling him to do what he does at home. I would think that was no one’s fault. You could take this topic to an extreme and ask what if someone was hypnotized. If a person is hypnotized and he is told to kill someone, who’s fault would that be? If a true rational anarchism were to look at a scenario like this, I think they would be puzzled at the problem that this creates.
It could not be the man’s fault, for he was hypnotized but he still did the action of killing. But the man who hypnotized him is partly to blame, because he hypnotized the man and commanded him to murder someone. Since the true rational anarchist says that you can’t share or split blame, whose fault would it be and why? That is what puzzles me and leaves me partly in favor of this notion and partly against it. I guess that all people are responsible for their actions but sometime those actions can be influenced by other factors, like friends, family and bosses. This would be just like peer pressure: you don’t want to but you are in a way forced to even if you don’t relize it.
If a boss asks you to work on the weekend, you may not want to but you know you will make a bad impression if you don’t. this will very from friend to family but there will be some for of peer pressure to make you do something you didn’t want to do. I do, on the other, hand believe in some parts of Rational anarchism. People are responsible for what they do. If I hit my brother, I would be responsible for what I did. I think there is another part of rational anarchism: for every action you carry out there will be a consequence.
Using the example above, if I hit my brother, he will either hit me back or tell my mom and either way, I will be hurt or get in trouble. I think no matter what has been done, there will be consequences, no matter if the action is good or bad. If you do something good you will probably get something good, or something good will happen to you and just the opposite if you do something bad. This isn’t true in all cases because as my parents have told me many times, “life isn’t fair.” I don’t believe that there could be a world of people who all believed in rational anarchism. Everybody would take responsibility for their actions but then what would happen.
If a rational anarchist kills someone, will he be punished? If he is isn’t, that , goes against what they believe in. They will slowly but surely start some form of a government and that is what they were against all the time. If they leave it up to the killer to punish himself, that is not very likely to happen. Not many people are likely to punish themselves if they can avoid it and this would mean that someone else would have to punish him. If you wanted to live in a world where all the people were rational anarchist they would all have to be very well behaved or it might end in the destruction of their world. This would be very hard to achieve because no one is perfect.
How are people to learn if something is wrong? Since they are responsible for their own actions it is up to them to punish themselves and if they don’t they will never know the differences between right and wrong, because they will continue to do the wrong that they have been ding and no one will stop them. Over all the idea of rational anarchism isn’t that bad. There are some parts of it in which I don’t fully support and there are other parts that I support. I do not think that is a bad way of thinking and I don’t think it is the best way of thinking. I simply place it in the middle. I would go for this way of thinking with a little o my own changes, but somewhere down the line someone will prove my theory wrong the one that I spent a lot of time trying to prefect.
That’s is ok since I know this will happen I wont bother with fixing it when someone else could do it for me. Science Essays.