Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Collective Responsibility
HamHamJ
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So this came up in the Watchmen thread and Satan said to make it it's own thread so here goes:
I said this:
This is apparently a shocking and confusing statement to some people.
Basically, the idea is that a citizenry bears some responsibility for the actions of the state and thus, for example, in a war the civilian population is not void of all responsiblity for what their military does. And thus, for example, nuking a city of a nation you are at war with is morally distinct, and more justifiable, then nuking a city of a nation you are not at war with.
A simple though experiment to make the case:
Suppose you buy a gun and give it to someone knowing that they are going to use it to shoot someone. Are you not also responsible for the result?
Now suppose a hundred people all got together and pulled their money to buy someone a gun knowing that they are going to use it to shoot someone. Are they not all responsible for the result?
Now suppose there is a nation of people who are paying taxes which are used to arm an army which then engages in various military activities generally involving shooting people. Are they not all responsible for the result?
And now for some name dropping, I mean, scholarly refrence:
Rousseau in Book IV of On the Social Contract expresses this very well:
Finally, I think Goumindong made a very good post that should be attached here:
I said this:
Why is it more okay to kill civilians during war to save lives but not during peace? Because it's official?It's not like a lot of civilians would not also have been killed if the bombs weren't used. And the important point is that military actions by a nation's military against another nation that they are at war with fall under a different moral code than actions by some guy against random people.
Because even if they are civilians they are not innocents. Whether by working for the war effort directly in factories or what not, or simply by paying taxes, they are part of their country's military activities and thus have fewer absolute rights than people not engaging in a war.
This is apparently a shocking and confusing statement to some people.
Basically, the idea is that a citizenry bears some responsibility for the actions of the state and thus, for example, in a war the civilian population is not void of all responsiblity for what their military does. And thus, for example, nuking a city of a nation you are at war with is morally distinct, and more justifiable, then nuking a city of a nation you are not at war with.
A simple though experiment to make the case:
Suppose you buy a gun and give it to someone knowing that they are going to use it to shoot someone. Are you not also responsible for the result?
Now suppose a hundred people all got together and pulled their money to buy someone a gun knowing that they are going to use it to shoot someone. Are they not all responsible for the result?
Now suppose there is a nation of people who are paying taxes which are used to arm an army which then engages in various military activities generally involving shooting people. Are they not all responsible for the result?
And now for some name dropping, I mean, scholarly refrence:
Rousseau in Book IV of On the Social Contract expresses this very well:
Rousseau wrote:Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the contract itself. But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they have not agreed to?
I retort that the question is wrongly put. The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break any of them. The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free. When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will. Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes. When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free.
Finally, I think Goumindong made a very good post that should be attached here:
Goumindong wrote:Short Answer: Yes.
Long Answer: Total War.
Comparing WWII with modern war morality is not a simple matter. Our generation has never faced a total war, where one side will only stop at the complete political dissolution of the other. In such situations there is no difference from the civilians of the political system and the factories of war. They pay its taxes, fund its army, hold the will to keep fighting. Its even more so in a democratic or republican system where the people have the power to stop said action and, at some point enabled the action to continue. If we were in a court of law, and discussing two people where one enabled the other to commit a murder with the knowledge it might happen, they would both go to jail for murder as well.
To put it in todays terms. We, as tax payers, hold direct responsibility for the actions that the U.S. is taking. Our taxes pay for Israeli weapons which subjugate Palestinians. Our taxes pay for bombs which we drop in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is by our political will or inaction that these acts are allowed to continue. We are then culpable for the actions that we enable and allow.
By "modern standards" in "modern wars" said culpability is typically abjugated. But this is more because both sides wish the conflict to be small and contained. Commensurate risk for commensurate gain. It is not because they feel the people are not morally responsible, but because theirs are as well.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Posts
No, because in your first two examples everyone gives money to the person specifically to purchase a gun for them. In the final example, the taxpayers do not have a say in what their money is spent on, nor are they informed what their specific contribution is applied towards.
Exactly what, as a minor, would I do to prevent that?
If you put people in charge, what those people do is (to some extent) your fault.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
Except that I did not wish to put those people in charge, and I did my responsibility as a registered voter by saying so by voting for a different candidate. So since I didn't help put him in charge, how is it my fault?
Then I guess you're one of the good guys, but you'll still probably die because of colateral damage, since bombs don't discriminate based upon who voted for whom.
But then that's the issue we're talking about. The entire idea that a civilian population of a country you are at war with is fair game (at least moreso than in peacetime or the population of another country) ignores the idea that a significant portion of that citizenry probably doesn't support their country's actions.
A significant portion of our population, for instance, does not support our occupation of Iraq...but at the same time cannot feasibly emigrate nor can they refuse to pay their taxes unless they'd like to wind up in prison.
Collateral damage is a necessarily evil, but it's probably best not to dress it up as being any less so because the people killed somehow lent some nebulous "support" to your enemies...there's a very real chance they didn't.
Exactly my point. There is no way to separate civilians who support the government from those who don't, so the entire situation is unethical.
We clearly need to invent bombs that do so.
But what if you don't know either way, or don't care? Or what if you are entirely oblivious? Am I supposed to be held responsible for actions the of my government that I am completely unaware of?
Freedom would be impossible if I, and everyone one else, were individually morally responsible for the laws.
Say my religion forbade me to drink, which it coincidentially does. Am I therefore violating a tenent of my religion by agreeing to live in a society which allows people to drink alcohol?
Say my religion forbade me to lie, which it coincidentially does. Whither freedom of speech? Am I morally obligated to force my religious beliefs on everyone else by having the government enforce fines and incarcerations against liars?
This is exactly right. A bunch of people are pointing, rightly, that it's silly to hold the individual citizan accountable for the complete actions of the government they elect.
But it's just as silly to argue the reverse: that a citizen in a representative democracy can just throw up their hands, say "you can't fight city hall," and bear no responsibility whatsoever for the actions of their government. It's the same thing with the "he's not my president!" people: yes, he is, even if you didn't vote for him.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
No, they are not military targets because nations want the ability to fight limited engagements without risking their political and economic stability.
Short answer, yes.
Even if you pay taxes and say that you don't want your money going to specific causes. Though that is an action that can cause a reversal of policy.
Yes, they do, they vote, they participate in political discussions, etc etc etc.
No, but clearly you aren't doing enough said situation is occurring. Or the other side is simply more numerous.
Is your religion your government?
No, by living in the society and within the benefits granted by said society and those actions committed in your name you are culpable. Its the same reason you pay taxes.
Its the social contract that you have accepted.
Are my morals my government?
No, what do morals have to do with whether or not you are responsible for your own actions?
There is a bill that may make objecting official for tax payers. But even then, if you're paying taxes you're paying for war.(unless the majority of the people require their funds to be diverted)
It is an obvious tennant of just about all social contract theory that you are not a "citizen" until you have reached your majority and made the decision to become a citizen by paying taxes, voting, etc.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
I never saw it coming.
(I didn't vote for him, but still)
As an example: No one who voted for Bush knew that in a few short years we'd be at war and causing (as few as we could) civilian casualties. Add to the fact, that while our taxpayer money does go to the military to some extent, they (the Bush administration) just borrowed a trillion dollars anyway and we would be at war regardless.
Xaquin's Manly Knitting Blog! Conquest Tactics .... a better CCG
My actions are not my government's actions.
My government relates to people in many, many ways which I do not.
It would be immoral for me to take people's money at gun point and then give it to old people, yet this is what Social Security does.
It would be immoral for me to eat meat, yet I live under a government that permits and even subsidizes the eating of meat.
If I want to live in a society in which I am not morally obligated to inflict my private beliefs on others, and am free from others who feel morally obligated to likewise inflict their beliefs on me, there must be a line drawn between the public and the private.
The Rousseou quote addresses this.
Just about all questions are on some level moral questions.
Thus it is somewhat non-sensical to say that you don't "inflict [your] personal beliefs on others" because when you vote to increase/decrease taxes or for a particular person to be Senator/President/etc it is because of your personal beliefs about economic theory, the qualities of the candidates, etc.
That certain sorts of things are considered to be things that should not be legislated, is itself a rule that we hold to because it is inscribed in the social contract that created this society, aka the Constitution.
O.K. So leave and find yourself a deserted tropical island.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
The question is only
"Are you responsible for the actions of your government?"
I don't recall voting to ratify the constitution. Also, the Constitution created the federal government, not this society. Political societies precede governments in contract theory. One does not simply jump from a state of nature into a defined legal order.
Here are some of the the problems with your argument: you want to make people responsible for the choices of the collective, no matter what their individual choices are. You accomplish this via a quote from Rousseau saying that no matter what your individual choices you are collectively responsible, which is essentially an argument from authority.
It is an argument from authority because you have isolated it from both Rousseau's passionate denunciation of representative assemblies as true barometers of the public will and his argument that freedom exists only in obedience to the public will. The first contradicts the point you are trying to make, that we are responsible for the actions of the United States government which is a representative democracy. The second is a point around which there has been some rather serious controversy.
Ah.
I see.
I am responsible for the actions of a state that not only threatens to imprison me for not supporting it, but holds the enjoyment of my family and homeland hostage for my obedience.
My 1/120,000,000th share in the decision of who holds national office is certainly a powerful thing to not be invalidated by such extreme duress.
I do not allow myself to eat meat.
I allow my government to allow its citizens to eat meat.
Clearly either there is a line here, or I am as responsible morally for you eating meat eat as I would be if I ate meat.
I don't think that the idea is applicable only in a direct democracy though. Just because Rousseou didn't like representative government does not mean that his basic ideas cannot be generalized to apply to a representative system which is still basically democratic. It is rare that everything a given thinker says is 100% correct, and you do not have to adopt one's philosphy whole hog just because you agree with some of their ideas.
By living in the US and doing the various things that a citizen does (obeying the law, paying taxes, voting, etc) you are de facto agreeing to the social contract which makes the society possible and this includes supporting the majority will.
It doesn't equate to you becoming a valid target, but I think it's arguable that it does allow for your country's opponent to accept the risk that you might be killed in the conflict.
Targeting strictly civilian populations (as opposed to civilians working in, say, the arms industry) is really hard to defend, however I'd suggest that all that is ethically required is to give collateral damage strong consideration, and make every attempt to avoid it...not avoid it altogether.
stop being a drama queen - you're free to leave at any time if it's really that bad to be part of a society
SWTOR: Allanna (Shadowlands) / TSW: Sara-Luna
Are you serious? Holds the enjoyment of your family and homeland hostage?
And yes, you are responsible for the actions of a state you support.
You're equating eating meat with killing people?
And yes, you are responsible for the consequences of your governments actions. If eating meat causes you consequences by allowing your government to support people eating meat you are responsible for what happens when they do.
Of course this all assumes that we are rational beings. Bernaise thought otherwise. Not sure about Kaczynski.
Maybe you should have said it in your own words then.
I am also under some rather extraordinary duress.
Obeying the law and paying taxes: The compulsion is immediate, the responsibility is convoluted and diluted.
Supporting the majority will in the election of representatives: Acknowledging a person's right to hold office is as far as individual consent goes. It does not extend to an endorsement of their decisions.
You have the right to mangle yourself by running repeatedly into a brick wall. George Bush has the right to command the armed forces of this nation. My obedience as a citizen makes me accept both rights. I am no more responsible for your broken limbs than I am for the actions of the armed forces.