Thinking is a Serious Problem: Responsibilities and Consequences: The Lost Connection

Growing up in the 50’s meant something very different from growing up today. As children and teens we were provided with privileges (never, ever called rights---a topic for a future post) which adults generally agreed could aid in a young person’s growth into a responsible person. Being able to stay out a little later, use the family car, take a camping trip with friends were examples of what we got to do if our parents judged us worthy. Privileges meant explicit obligations. We could continue to do these things, or even add new ones, so long as we showed good judgment, behaved properly, and did not otherwise abuse the opportunity. If we violated any of these, the opportunity was withdrawn, at least for a while. There was a very clear connection between what we got to do as an opportunity and what we had to do in exchange---the obligation or responsibility.

Although not all adults’ views were identical, there was an unspoken consensus among parents, teachers, neighbors, religious leaders, and even newspapers about what was appropriate behavior for young people, and how to deal with behavior that did not meet that “standard.” Any adult, known to us or not, could reprimand us for misbehavior, and was expected to do so. Further, if my parents found out about a reprimand, I was in for another one at home. If I got into trouble at school, that entailed a loss of privileges at home in every case. No matter the source of the reprimand, except in very rare cases the word of the reprimanding adult was conclusive and final, especially if it came from a teacher or other socially important person. Consequences were enforced.

Arising directly out of the 60’s view that “if it feels good it is good,” we have discarded the consensus of responsible action, with a concomitant breakdown in behavior and civility in both young people and adults. A factor aiding this societal breakdown was an enormous expansion of “rights,” an essentially narcissistic view saying that whatever I want to do is a right, even if that is seen by others as inappropriate if not outright wrong. If I want to talk loudly in restaurant, that is my “right.” If I want to wear clothing that is offensive, that is my “right.”  If I want my kid to run amok at school, that is both my “right” and my kid’s as well.

Critically, and as I said in the last post, if your view is in opposition to mine, my “rights” prevail over yours under all conditions.  If you dislike or are offended by what I consider my “right,” too bad for you. The problem is yours. I am never to be held accountable for my behavior because it is a “right.”

The problems of rights without obligations have reached near catastrophic proportions in raising children. Starting from birth children have been accorded all sorts of “rights” by parents whose ability to set proper limits and hold their children accountable is bankrupt. The children, seeing a huge gap in the system of responsible behavior, have surged right through it, insisting with their parents’ often unwilling accommodation that they are in charge of the house, which they are, thus leading these mini-adults seeing the world as their entitlement---I get to do what I want, period.

 Even when rights expanded in legitimate ways, problems arose because of one huge failure---offering people new rights but forgetting that responsibilities must come with all rights. An interesting example of this started in high schools in the 70’s when young people were allowed to call teachers by their first names, have more freedom to select classes and wear unusual clothes, schedule classes at their whim, and leave campus more often. Nothing wrong with these, except for the fact that no responsibilities were attached, leading again to the idea that people could (should) have rights without any obligations.

Any right that is enshrined in our legal and governmental system comes with obligations to use the right properly. I can follow my religious dictates, but I cannot cause others troubles because they do not believe as I do. I may drive a car so long as I meet various driving and administrative (insurance, etc.) obligations. I may own and use a weapon so long as I follow important procedures for safety, etc. We all know that failure to exercise these rights properly generally means we will be held accountable. But the self-centered “rights” have no such connection, and American society has suffered badly because of it.

Overall, our society is characterized by a lack of personal restraint, of care for the wellbeing of others, and of adequate systems for holding people accountable for poor behavior. This has led to condition of little inter-personal respect, very high levels of incivility and crime, and increased levels of frustration and anger as legitimate social rights are trampled. Interestingly, the very people who will trounce you so that their “rights” prevail are often those who are adamant that our society needs more civility and respect. What they really mean is respect for and civility to them.

In his book, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says,

“Human rights are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. A society with unlimited rights is incapable of standing to adversity. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…. A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.”