Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TygrBright

(20,733 posts)
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 02:13 PM Jul 2014

What should, and shouldn't, "have consequences."

First, let me differentiate between what I consider an "effect" versus a "consequence."

You put your hand on a hot stove burner, the EFFECT is a nasty burn. The stove burner isn't providing a "consequence" for your stupidity or absent mindedness, any more than it's providing a "consequence" for the teakettle you just put there.

If you want a big, powerful car and you don't have the money to buy it, so you decide to just take one from a parking lot, you can expect a CONSEQUENCE of getting arrested when you're caught, and possibly further consequences from the court.

In a gray area there's a third thing: The risks we knowingly or unknowingly take.

In the late 1940s, my father started smoking because it was what young men did in those days, and no one knew it carried a risk. He died of lung cancer in 1970. A young woman I was close to in High School chose to go motor-cycle riding with her boyfriend, even though he didn't have a helmet for a passenger. He offered her his helmet, but she "wanted to feel the wind in her hair." This did not turn out well, and our whole class attended the funeral. I've often wondered how he feels about it, after all these years.

We can say that taking risks "carries consequences," but in fact, they're more like "effects with odds." No one decided that smoking should be discouraged and therefore added carcinogens to tobacco to create a "consequence" for smokers. (They DID add carcinogens to tobacco, but not for that reason.)

In other words, "consequence" has an ethical or moral dimension. When you do something that is deleterious to the well-being of your species, tribe, family, social group, etc., a consequence may be created to sanction that behavior.

So here's a short, VERY incomplete list of stuff that should definitely have consequences:

  • Spewing toxins into the air everyone has to breathe, the water everyone has to drink, and the soil that produces everyone's food.
  • Making sick veterans who have sacrificed to serve their country wait so long for health care that they get worse or die.
  • Seeking election ostensibly to serve the interests of everyone, and then acting entirely for the benefit of a few.
  • And then covering it up.
  • And then lying about the coverup.
  • And then lying about the lying.
  • Cruelty.
  • Child abuse.

And here's something that should generally not have consequences:

  • Having consensual sex.

(Which isn't to say that it won't have personal consequences, if, say, you're in another relationship at the time and the other person doesn't know you're cattin' around... there may definitely be some individual impact, there. But that's between y'all.)

Just my tuppeny'orth.

hypothetically,
Bright
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What should, and shouldn't, "have consequences." (Original Post) TygrBright Jul 2014 OP
Well said, my dear Bright. CaliforniaPeggy Jul 2014 #1
Exactly! K & R Still Sensible Jul 2014 #2
Smart shenmue Jul 2014 #3
I always enjoy reading intelligent posts that logically and precisely analyze issues. KnR. nt tblue37 Jul 2014 #4
Yup! Another Bright post. longship Jul 2014 #5
I get your point, but the word 'consequence' does not in fact indicate an ethical or moral aspect Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #6
I've always been a little freaked out by the "consequences" argument Scootaloo Jul 2014 #7

longship

(40,416 posts)
5. Yup! Another Bright post.
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 03:38 PM
Jul 2014

And nicely stated they are. (Like Yoda I am writing... Arrrrrgh!)

Well put, Bright.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
6. I get your point, but the word 'consequence' does not in fact indicate an ethical or moral aspect
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 05:11 PM
Jul 2014

It is: the result or effect of an action or condition, something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions.
It is not something done with intention to punish, it is just a result or effect of an action. A consequence is not different from an effect in any intangible moralistic way.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
7. I've always been a little freaked out by the "consequences" argument
Sat Jul 5, 2014, 05:14 PM
Jul 2014

What the fuck is going through someone's mind that they see children as a punishment for sex? because that's what the "consequences" argument is, stating that if you have sex you ought to be punished with pregnancy - with having children.

One wonders how they treat their own children.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What should, and shouldn'...