tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5207474151387189674..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Individual vs. Group ResponsibilityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58814449037330061852007-10-01T20:40:00.000-06:002007-10-01T20:40:00.000-06:00"Now the issue is when individual X does something..."Now the issue is when individual X does something to individual Y on what basis can Y....."<BR/><BR/>Martino, <BR/>Actually, to clarify my position here, that is not my concern. My argument here is not to find some cases where some kind of retaliation based on group responsibility is justified. But instead to argue that we do need to acknowledge varying degrees of responsibility that is attributable to social groups at varying scales. And I argue that we need to be much more specific than simply basing it on membership in a given social group.<BR/><BR/>I also completely agree with Alonzo about the moral quagmire that results from the doctrine of believing that some kind of collective guilt justifies some kind of retaliation against a group of people. I repudiate that completely because the consequences become horrific, and solve no problems.<BR/><BR/>Another case to illustrate the problem is the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. <BR/><BR/>So for example I would argue that few if any Isreali settlers on the West Bank of adult age can be considered truly innocent. Through their participation in the settler's social movement they are engaged in a colonial theft of land from its rightful owners.<BR/><BR/>However, a Palestinian suicide bomber is still not justified for many reasons. His tactics are indiscriminate against those varying degrees of collective responsibility. His tactics harden the resolve and hatred of his enemies, and invite retaliation against his group. This is not to argue that Palestinians don't have a right to resist, but their cause only maintains its justness through moral tactics of resistance.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2723600940274653892007-10-01T10:28:00.000-06:002007-10-01T10:28:00.000-06:00I could also add to Sheldon's comments what about ...I could also add to Sheldon's comments what about political parties which are designed to have some form of collective or group responsibility? In most electoral systems you are voting for the party even if you are actually voting for a specific individual.<BR/><BR/>Now the issue is when individual X does something to individual Y on what basis can Y (and Y's self-identified group A) decide the X is a member of group B and retaliate against another member of B? The issue is creating false group identities and forced group responsibilities and imposing them on the resultant externally determined members.This is the point I think Alonzo is trying to make and I agree. <BR/><BR/>The question becomes who decides when an action is related to a group and that the group bears some responsibility? Is it the case that the default position <I>should</I> be, disregarding the type of actions that may or may not be legitimately taken, that external determinations of group membership and necessarily connected responsibilities are likely false. I think it is. Unfortunately we dont not yet live in such a world...Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28691118502687528962007-09-30T21:13:00.000-06:002007-09-30T21:13:00.000-06:00Alonzo,I apologize for double posting so soon.Howe...Alonzo,<BR/>I apologize for double posting so soon.<BR/><BR/>However, I also wanted to point out that it seems to be a natural fact of human cognition that we mentally organize ourselves and others into group membership. And attribute responsibility to those groups. Thats not an argument having anything to do with the morality of the practice, but simply an observation. <BR/><BR/>I quote you below from your Sept. 24th "Baiting" article, not as a "gotcha" but simply to illustrate the fact. And I acknowledge that what you really intend to attribute responsibility to are actual individual Iraqi actors. <BR/><BR/>"The people of Iraq are the wrongdoer fully responsible for the denigration of their society."Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53609562473778199302007-09-30T20:55:00.000-06:002007-09-30T20:55:00.000-06:00Mmmm, how to phrase my criticism or question?Alonz...Mmmm, how to phrase my criticism or question?<BR/><BR/>Alonzo,<BR/>The logic is completely valid. However, it seems the analysis at various levels raises alot of questions.<BR/> <BR/>It is unassailably true that it is individuals that commit violent acts. Sometimes along with other individual companions who explicitly act with them, i.e. intentional groups. <BR/><BR/>It is true that it is completely wrong for a member of group x to retaliate against a member of group y, simply because another member of group y committed an atrocity against a member of group x.<BR/><BR/>However, it also seems to be an unavoidable fact that people act collectively, as groups at various scales from the micro to the macro. There does seem to be cases where at some level there is group responsibility. Where it gets fuzzy and difficult is toward the macro end that includes ethnic groups and societies.<BR/><BR/>Now of course it is the leadership of groups who order actions, and their subordinates who carry out those actions that carry the most responsibility. But can others not directly involved be responsible to various extents, either through degrees of direct or indirect support, or complicity? <BR/><BR/>The case of Nazi Germany, might be an interesting case to consider here. There were many German citizens who may have been involved in very minor ways with the holocaust, perhaps "just doing their jobs." Others may have only lent political support without real knowledge of what was happening. Others perhaps were not directly involved in any aspect of the holocaust, but only "minded their own business" and did nothing in opposition. Still, the latter of these groups were complicit in a great crime against humanity.<BR/><BR/>It would be clearly wrong to condemn all Germans, simply for being Germans, for the holocaust. Some Germans did resist or oppose these events in various ways. On the other hand there is a level of collective responsibility. It might be sloppy to express that collective responsibility in the phrase "the German people" of the Nazi era, but it seems to be true to a certain extent.<BR/><BR/>The problem of punishment is even more difficult. It would seem to be a nearly impossible task to impose a just punishement on these lower levels of responsibility. I in fact consider the fire bombing of Dresden and other actions against Germany in WWII as great moral atrocities (innocent children were victims).<BR/><BR/>Any thanks for a thought provoking post.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.com