Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

All my life, I have considered that we all bear personal responsibility. That every one of us is responsible for what we do and say, and for their consequences.

Of course, when/if we judge someone's doings, we don't just look at them, we look at the context/environment in which they took place. But the basic theme endures: we are responsible for our own actions.

That has always seemed clear to me. Black and white; one of the few real world areas in which there is no grey.



Then, a short time ago, I had an autistic meltdown. This was the first one I've experienced. And in its grip, I said stuff over which I had no conscious control. [This is not the everyday meaning of "meltdown", this is a bona fide medical term. See below.]

So these words were said. I had no conscious control over their being said. But they came out of my mouth.

The philosophical question this topic asks is, Who, if anyone, is responsible for those words?

What Is a Meltdown?

An autistic meltdown is an involuntary reaction to nervous system overload. The response is not behavioral, but an uncontrollable physical response to the intense emotions that take over.1

In young children, an autistic meltdown looks much like a temper tantrum but can be more intense. After all, one of the meanings of the word "meltdown" is the catastrophic exposure of radioactive material in a nuclear reactor accident.

Autistic meltdowns are not age-related and may happen at any age. Older children, teens, and autistic adults can also experience meltdowns—even those who have low support needs (considered high functioning).

The Difference Between a Tantrum and an Autistic Meltdown

An autistic meltdown is bigger, more emotional, longer-lasting, and more difficult to manage than a temper tantrum. Tantrums and meltdowns also have different causes.

Tantrums are typically manipulative, where a child tries to get what they want by crying, screaming, or making a scene. By contrast, autistic meltdowns are not manipulative—they are genuine cries of distress.

[LuckyR]

Sorry you had to go through that and that you have to deal with the aftermath as well as the shock of loss of control.

As to your question, it an interesting one. Morally you are not responsible, socially you're definitely responsible and thus for example apologizing for what you said is required, even though you are not morally (meaning internally) responsible.

Legally, it's up to the skill of your lawyer and how you appear to a jury.

[Gertie]

The philosophical question runs into lots of issues imo. Free wiill for one, but even allowing for choice there's the issue of how much our genes , past experience, mental health and testing circumstances limit choices. Plus we all mess up, that's part of being human.

On a human level, Lucky put it well, it's a horrible thing to happen to you, as well as those you may have hurt. Hope you're coping OK PC.

Personally I'd feel a responsibility to explain, try to take action to minimise the likelihood of it happening again if poss, and apologise. Apologising for unintentionally hurting someone is generally a good idea imo, it acknowledges the hurt and helps build bridges and understanding.

[Sy Borg]

That's a bummer, P-C. You, of course, are responsible. It might not be fair that you are responsible, but life is not fair. I've melted down in the past but I would not say the events were something I could blame on my autism. I was just being a fool, losing my perspective and focus. It happens. All sorts of people melt down, not just autists. It's just a melt down, not an autistic meltdown. Cock-ups happen - all the time. Most of us, when we screw up, will either apologise or dig in, depending on our temperament at the time.

In the past, I agonised and apologised to people over things they did not even remember. Being autistic means being hyper sensitive in certain areas and insensitive in other areas, so we sometime amplify what others see as trivial and treat as trivial that which others revere. Take note of this when tempted to self-flagellate.

In the end, philosophy is your friend. Focus on being objective as possible - how would a reasonable person respond to the situation? How might Marcus Aurelius or Diogenes respond? I find history helpful, to help put things into perspective, looking back, long before the times focused on in culture war revisionism. It provides context, perspective.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's a bummer, P-C.

On a human level, Lucky put it well, it's a horrible thing to happen to you, as well as those you may have hurt. Hope you're coping OK PC.

Sorry you had to go through that and that you have to deal with the aftermath as well as the shock of loss of control.

Thank you all for the kind words; I do appreciate them. But I didn't write this topic looking for sympathy.

[And, for the purposes of this topic, can we just accept that, during an autistic meltdown, the individual is not in conscious control of themselves? Thanks.]



So it looks as though I have been right on this, and that personal responsibility remains with the person, even in such unusual circumstances as I have described here.

Morally you are not responsible, socially you're definitely responsible and thus for example apologizing for what you said is required, even though you are not morally (meaning internally) responsible.

Legally, it's up to the skill of your lawyer and how you appear to a jury.

Ah, here's the first nuance. A difference between moral and social responsibility. [Legal too.] Interesting.

The philosophical question runs into lots of issues imo. Free wiill for one, but even allowing for choice there's the issue of how much our genes , past experience, mental health and testing circumstances limit choices. Plus we all mess up, that's part of being human.

Personally I'd feel a responsibility to explain, try to take action to minimise the likelihood of it happening again if poss, and apologise. Apologising for unintentionally hurting someone is generally a good idea imo, it acknowledges the hurt and helps build bridges and understanding.

Also free will? OK.

Also, "Apologising for unintentionally hurting someone" is fairly obvious, but not to be ignored just because of that.

In the end, philosophy is your friend. Focus on being objective as possible - how would a reasonable person respond to the situation? How might Marcus Aurelius or Diogenes respond? I find history helpful, to help put things into perspective, looking back, long before the times focused on in culture war revisionism. It provides context, perspective.

Hmm. "Being objective". It's always attractive, in theory, to see if an objective approach might help. But on a moral issue? Aren't morals, a bit like religion or metaphysics, less amenable to objectivity than other, more analytic, subjects? In other words, on the basis of 'horses for courses', is objectivity helpful here? What do you (the reader; anyone who is reading) think?



So far, we have been offered different areas (?) of responsibility, social, moral, and legal. Free will and objectivity too. Is this topic interesting enough to develop, perhaps using some or all of these starting points? If it is, please post your thoughts.

For myself, I think objectivity is less helpful. Not because of any failing, but because there is little objectivity involved in a moral decision like this one, yes?

Free will, I think, simply moves the question sideways, but without offering anything else other than that. Have I got that right?

Areas of responsibility seem to offer greater scope for consideration. Legal responsibility we can accept and move on, I think, as legal responsibility is well-defined and well-understood (by lawyers, if no-one else). Unless anyone wishes to suggest that legal responsibility, and the way it works, in practice, is wrong, or could be improved?

Social and moral responsibility. From your words, LuckyR, I think you mean moral responsibility is aimed inward, to/at the person, while social responsibility applies to everyone else around that person. Yes? I think that's an interesting and useful distinction. Inward-facing and outward-facing responsibility. To the particular question I have asked, perhaps this approach seems to offer the best possibility of improving our understanding (which is my aim)?

We have my responsibility or duty to myself, and to others, and the two can deliver different results, as Lucky has said. Inwardly, I might bear no responsibility, but outwardly, I would. So the answer to my question is 'yes and no'. But it's a useful answer; I'm not dismissing or ridiculing it.

Has Lucky answered my question, solved my problem, or is there more to say?

[Stoppelmann]

The philosophical question this topic asks is, Who, if anyone, is responsible for those words?

I feel for you, and I think I understand your quandary, but the question might not have a definitive answer because it sits at the crossroads of multiple aspects.

First of all, if our actions are determined by neurobiological factors in some situations like the one you described, can we ever be fully responsible when our conscious control is taken from us?

Secondly, I see responsibility as a shared concept, involving not just the individual but their relationships and social context. We share according to our abilities, which vary according to age, health, physical status and intellectual ability amongst other factors.

Thirdly, the absence of conscious intent doesn't negate the importance of impact. Therefore, responsibility, here, might mean acknowledging what happened, not in guilt, but in recognition and accountability for its effects. Yes it happened, but under circumstances beyond your control.

Ultimately, while you may not bear full moral responsibility for your words during the meltdown, you can engage with the consequences in a way that aligns with your values, but so that it promotes understanding, repair, and growth.

[LuckyR]

Social and moral responsibility. From your words, LuckyR, I think you mean moral responsibility is aimed inward, to/at the person, while social responsibility applies to everyone else around that person. Yes? I think that's an interesting and useful distinction. Inward-facing and outward-facing responsibility. To the particular question I have asked, perhaps this approach seems to offer the best possibility of improving our understanding (which is my aim)?

We have my responsibility or duty to myself, and to others, and the two can deliver different results, as Lucky has said. Inwardly, I might bear no responsibility, but outwardly, I would. So the answer to my question is 'yes and no'. But it's a useful answer; I'm not dismissing or ridiculing it.

Yeah, a good summary of my thoughts. When I was younger, I assumed that one was much more relevant than the other. It was only through time and experience that I realized both are (almost) equally important.

[Good_Egg]

Two concepts came to mind when reading the above -"diminished responsubility' and 'taking it personally". Start with the first.

Maybe the sort of meltdown you're talking about is an extreme case of diminished responsibility, so how we think of it should be consistent with how we think of less-extreme cases.

If I commit some wrong under the influence of excess alcohol, then in one sense that (at least partly) excuses my behaviour. But in another sense, I am responsible for the fact of me being in that state of diminished responsibility, so the full responsibility remains with me.

Similarly, if someone has a medical condition that is kept at bay by drugs, but one day they choose not to take their prescribed dose, then by that decision they bear responsibility for anything that the condition makes them do as a result.

It seems to be a fact that some medical conditions do influence behaviour to others in a negative way. That some people have such conditions and others don't clearly isn't fair. Seems to me that where it gets difficult is how far sufferers from such conditions should be expected to insulate others from any consequences. (Possibly versus some sort of right to a normal life ?)

With the added complication that the boundary of what is considered medical is not well-defined.

[Pattern-chaser]

The philosophical question this topic asks is, Who, if anyone, is responsible for those words?

First of all, if our actions are determined by neurobiological factors in some situations like the one you described, can we ever be fully responsible when our conscious control is taken from us?

As Gertie mentioned earlier, there is free will to be taken into account too. I think your words here are moving in that general direction? Since we are constrained, perhaps very heavily, by external factors, do we really have free will at all? And if we do (or don't), how is responsibility, personal and social, influenced by that?

[Pattern-chaser]

Two concepts came to mind when reading the above -"diminished responsibility' and 'taking it personally". Start with the first.

Maybe the sort of meltdown you're talking about is an extreme case of diminished responsibility, so how we think of it should be consistent with how we think of less-extreme cases.

Yes, now you've reminded me, the phrase commonly-used is "diminished responsibility". I had been half-thinking in terms of responsibility and "extenuating circumstances", but you're right. Maybe I'm reading too much into the choice of words, but does it say that responsibility can actually be "diminished", i.e. reduced, or even removed? Is that possible or acceptable?

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems to be a fact that some medical conditions do influence behaviour to others in a negative way. That some people have such conditions and others don't clearly isn't fair. Seems to me that where it gets difficult is how far sufferers from such conditions should be expected to insulate others from any consequences.

Yes, bearing in mind that it may be that the sufferer cannot (i.e. is not able to) "insulate others from any consequences". But I think you're right to focus on this as a central argument. It is certainly, as you say, the place where it all "gets difficult".

[Sy Borg]

If one's ailment is not physical, it's unrealistic to expect anyone to cut you any slack. Break a leg and everyone gets it. Have brain issues, everyone judges. Deceit has been so common for so long that most people don't trust excuses for behavioural faux pas. There is a small subset of activists who will swallow any story that paints a person as "oppressed", but they are awful allies for whom the word "loyalty" equals corruption, and any disagreement with their ideologies results in complete rejection.

What are the choices? Grin, bear it, issue any appropriate apologies, persevere. Not unlike with my recent gut issues, one simply try to operate with care, and hope that this prevents recurrences.