RESPONSIBILITY

Last year I read a very interesting text exactly on this topic. Even though now I can’t recollect the name of the author (probably Popper), the concept expressed has been so far sealed in my memory. According to this philosopher, the responsibility of a man towards another was necessary only in a scenario whereby the latter wasn’t capable of responding of himself. He made examples which specifically underlined this idea: parents-children, man-environment. Until the age of 18, a parent is obligated to provide for his child: why isn’t there any obligation after the child has grown beyond this age? Why does the law bind us to respect and treat the environment properly? It seems then that this philosopher is right. Therefore, if it’s so, why should I take on the responsibility of someone else who can do it on his own? Why should I suffer from others’ irresponsibility? Wouldn’t it be better if everyone responded for himself? Of course, it would be, but as we all know, there is always a black sheep in every family. What if I didn’t give a damn about him and allowed him to do whatever he liked? Nobody would accuse me of abandoning someone who chose to live irresponsibly to himself. We are all humans, all equal, we all have our duties and have to hustle. There isn’t any room for the lazy ones who are always waiting on others to take their blames. I have never and I will never support those who discharge their faults on other people expecting these, on the law “Everyone responds of everyone” to resolve the situation. Exactly because I don’t accept this situation, I can’t also totally agree with the school policy and with the "law of parties" in Texas. Both penalizes me for someone else’s offence. 1st scenario: - I pay for my studies - I do my homework all by myself By what right can the school constrain me to pay for the stupidity of a mate who has never been serious with his studies? 2nd scenario: - a robbery - a stupid mate shoots and kills a man - I wasn’t aware of the situation as I was waiting inside the car Why should the law punish for an unfortunate coincidence (being at the wrong place at the wrong time)? Why have I analyzed these two situations? I just want to underline how institutions are promoting a very bad interpretation of the word RESPONSIBILITY. You can do, undo, or don’t do, who cares. There are always some Peters, James, and Johns who’ll be punished with you. This is what I called ETHICAL LAZINESS. Example 1: - I drink and drive. - I have an accident and kill somebody. Instead of admitting my mistakes, I accuse my friend who made me to drive drunk. Example 2: - I live my entire life on lies - My castle built of sand is finally breaking down I can always look for a kindhearted person to sustain it for me while I clean off the sweat from his forehead from time to time. NO! These situations are unacceptable. If you, my friend, acknowledge your errors, you are ready to amend, I’ll lend you a hand. But if you, not only you err, you also refuse to amend, I’ll turn my back on you.If you want others to answer for you, you have to answer for yourself, because as I said earlier, we are humans and we are equal, so how can you take the liberty to live above others? I am sorry, but I don’t agree and won’t let you do your selfish wish. When you make mistakes, admit and adjust. It won’t make you a loser, but will rather prove you are an adult but most of all responsible.