Who is responsible?

From a /. comment

Saying that external factors cannot affect a person's decision to commit suicide doesn't seem reasonable. It's the same as saying that external factors cannot affect us at all, for any reason. Even if I did the evil things above, I certainly wouldn't be entirely to blame for his suicide (after all, he pulled the trigger, or took the pill, leapt off the bridge, whatever), but if I set up circumstances to the point where he felt like he had no way out, I would be at least partly culpable, by any reasonable moral standard. (I don't know if I could be held legally liable, in a criminal sense, although I probably could be successfully sued in civil court for wrongful death, or somesuch, assuming that his family could provide evidence).

The whole idea of responsibility is an interesting one. It is clear that there are always mitigating circumstances that affect a person's decision to do one thing or another; to think that each man is an island is naive. Just because one is affected by things external to them, does that mean that they don't bear full responsibility for their actions?

One can approach this issue looking at examples and hypothetical situations, but the resultant answer would be specific to that situation and not necessarily apply to all situations. But if we step back and approach this from a higher level, we can try to determine a certain set of guidelines that will, hopefully, be applicable to all situations.

responsibility n.
1. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
2. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

responsible adj.
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
3. Being a source or cause.
4. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
5. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
6. Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
7. Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
8. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.

Obviously, there are multiple definitions for responsible. The key ones that I will be using will be definitions 3 and 4 (highlighted in bold above) to base my argument around. To further clarify, definition 3, "Being a source or cause", needs to be limitted to the direct source or the direct cause. To do otherwise would be rediculous; allowing for infinite chains of blame.

Now, based on these definitions, it is obvious that if you are able to make a moral choice, of sound mind, and without assistance, you are responsible for your actions. Even if you are making the decision under duress, you are still responsible for making that decision. Does the person putting you in duress have culpability? Probably, but for a different action. He is culpable but not responsible because you had the power to make the decision.

Now, if you were not of sound mind, as in, under psychologically manipulative drugs, whoever administered the drug would be responsible because you would not have made that decision were it not for the drug. But if it was your choice to take the drug, you are responsible for your actions after taking the drug because you were of sound mind when taking the drug. To blame the drug for your actions posthumulously would be rediculous.

Using these set of guidelines, we can see that society is not responsible for our actions. Nor is the person who's threatening you. Now, we can apply the guidelines to examples.