Quick question:
So, the principle that Michiko invokes is the second sentence: "People are responsible for the consequences of actions that they voluntarily undertake, if they know that those actions risk such consequences."
This principle written in formal logic, looks like so:
If people know that a voluntarily undertaken action of theirs risks certain consequences --> they are responsible for those consequences
and the contrapositive is:
If people are NOT responsible for the consequences of a voluntarily undertaken action --> they do NOT know that their actions risk those consequences
From this principle (and its formal logic), am I correct to say that we can never judge whether someone is NOT responsible (the sufficient clause of the contra positive)? - that the answer choices cannot say anything that could possibly guarantee that the person is NOT responsible?
because all we know in that contrapositive is what the necessary requirements are to be deemed NOT responsible, but even if an answer choice gave us information that Collen met all those necessary requirements (that is, she did NOT know that her actions risked certain consequences), we cannot know that she is NOT responsible for the consequences of her action, right? (because that would be reversing the contrapositive without negating AND it would be negating the original FL statement without reversing, right?)
thanks a lot! i posed a similar question on a different question a few days ago but haven't gotten a response yet.
thanks!