When you discover firefox's spellcheck. I'm so proud of you asguarderdrsr
innocence and agency
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
I think three things are required for moral culpability:
1. Knowledge that immoral acts are taking place.
2. Understanding that the acts are immoral.
3. Choosing to participate or be a party to those acts anyway.
The baby lacks all three of these. An adolescent may lack 1 or 2, or may have no effective choice (thus eliminating 3). Young adults, if they have 1, probably have 2 and 3. And the hitman's wife, who has all of 1,2 and 3, is certainly not innocent.
The criminal law where I live makes criminal conspiracy a crime. Criminals conspire when they act together with a common aim, even if one person is not involved in the entire enterprise. So, a mob boss who orders a hit is as guilty of murder as the hitman who pulls the trigger.
Bells
Staff member
Really? It has come to this?
If her spouse does not let on or keeps it secret from her, at no time. Not everything is as cut and dry. Many wives have no idea what their spouse gets up to. Work with abused women and you discover that very quickly.
Tell me something, do you doubt your partner about everything and thus, have to keep a wary eye on her, just in case she is a contract killer? Do you check her bank accounts every week and double check where her money is coming from?
Since they were sinners and earned a salary from organisations that may have benefited from Government actions or from companies that benefited and so on and so forth?
Do you think the people who died in the Bali bombing deserved it since they weren't innocents in your opinion - you know, since they may have voted for Governments that support Israel, etc? How about the victims of the Lockerbie bombing? Spain? The UK?
What about you Asguard? You are a white Australian, born here are you not? Should we hand you over to the local Aboriginal tribe for some tribal justice since your being born here and your continued presence here is a continued reminder of their loss of land and rights? Lets say they did revolt and go on a killing spree, would their actions be understandable and justified since in your world, you would not be classified as an innocent?
You vote too, don't you? If a radical terrorist hunted you down and killed you, or blew you up or blew up your girlfriend or family, you would console yourself and those around you with 'well they voted for Governments that support Israel so they profited from the deaths of others so they are not innocents'?
What about rape victims? Oh ho, she's dressed in a mini, so she cannot claim to be innocent, she should have known?
How have you done that aside from trying to defend the mass murders of thousands of people who were, yes, innocent?
If her spouse does not let on or keeps it secret from her, at no time. Not everything is as cut and dry. Many wives have no idea what their spouse gets up to. Work with abused women and you discover that very quickly.
Would have, could have should have. You cite the bloodied clothing analogy. In that case yes, she was in a position to question or doubt his sincerity. But if there are no traces, how could she possibly know? Unless of course you are saying that as a wife, she should have been automatically suspicious?
Tell me something, do you doubt your partner about everything and thus, have to keep a wary eye on her, just in case she is a contract killer? Do you check her bank accounts every week and double check where her money is coming from?
So you think they deserved to die as they did?
Since they were sinners and earned a salary from organisations that may have benefited from Government actions or from companies that benefited and so on and so forth?
Do you think the people who died in the Bali bombing deserved it since they weren't innocents in your opinion - you know, since they may have voted for Governments that support Israel, etc? How about the victims of the Lockerbie bombing? Spain? The UK?
What about you Asguard? You are a white Australian, born here are you not? Should we hand you over to the local Aboriginal tribe for some tribal justice since your being born here and your continued presence here is a continued reminder of their loss of land and rights? Lets say they did revolt and go on a killing spree, would their actions be understandable and justified since in your world, you would not be classified as an innocent?
You vote too, don't you? If a radical terrorist hunted you down and killed you, or blew you up or blew up your girlfriend or family, you would console yourself and those around you with 'well they voted for Governments that support Israel so they profited from the deaths of others so they are not innocents'?
What about rape victims? Oh ho, she's dressed in a mini, so she cannot claim to be innocent, she should have known?
And you have taken responsibility for the actions taken in your name have you?
How have you done that aside from trying to defend the mass murders of thousands of people who were, yes, innocent?
I take it you ride your 'bike ambulance' to all emergencies since parts of your vehicle are made from using components that use up oil in some way or other, if not the very fuel used in it?
No one is, but you are virtually saying that every populace is responsible for everything the Government does, and if they are killed in a terrorist attack, no one should complain because those victims could have voted for a Government that may or may not support Israel.
You are arguing for total war in which there are no civilians in an attempt to justify terrorism.
Well, that logic would also justify Israel waging a war of extermination against the Palestinians. After all, they voted for Hamas, didn't they?
I'd like to hear the chain of reasoning that establishes how your average US citizen, to be found riding in an airplane or existing in the vicinity of the Twin Towers, "profited from the oppression of others" as such.
And those Americans who have consistently voted against said policies, or even been explicit activists on such questions? It seems quite a reach to assert that all Americans are necessarily political supporters of said Israeli actions.
What you seem to be after is a different matter(s): first, citizens of democratic countries do, on some level, accept a certain level of responsibility for their government, even when "their guy" doesn't win the election. But that doesn't render them conspirators in policies that they explicitly oppose with their (limited) agency. Second, you're riding right over the distinction between civilians and military - one can accept that one does bear a moral responsibility for one's political preferences and their effects, without also accepting that such deprives one of civilian status, as such.
Actually if we're going to insist that everyone in a democracy is fair game as a military target, including those who oppose the actions in question, then I see no reason to excempt citizens of a dictatorship either. Neither of those categories of people possesses sufficient agency to ensure that their preferences become state policy - so why does the one get a free pass? Why don't we just take the absence of widespread resistance to the dictator - sufficient to undermine his power - as effectively comprising a democratic mandate for his policies? Most dictatorships, these days, also hold themselves up as "democracies" - and pursue overt populism - after all.
Except that these wars have the apparent effect of increasing the cost of filling up the gas tank. So, again, not seeing where the average voter is profiting - might be a different story if we were talking about oil executives or something.
But neither can you expect to forfeit your status as a civilian simply for failing to prevent your government from doing that, despite your best efforts. Can you?
I mean, I don't hear people complaining that enemies would want to make war on Israel or the USA, as such. The complaints all have to do with disregarding the distinction between military and civilian. You want to attack an American military base or ship, or assault an Israeli checkpoint? By all means, have at it. Blowing up random civilians is a different story.
Moreover, I don't think you really want to be pushing this total war reading of the scenario. If we're to accept that we're engaged in total war, then there's no room to complain about civilian casualties on either side - there are no "civilians," to speak of. In that context, for Israel to systematically destroy and cripple Palestine - including the intentional destruction of hospitals, schools, food supplies and any number of unarmed Palestinians - would simply be the normal, legitimate prosecution of warfare. Just about anything that would degrade the enemy's ability and will to resist you is fair game, in that context. Surely that is not the perspective you wish to advance, here?
It wouldn't even matter who they voted for, or if they voted at all - the assertion that a state of total war exists directly implies that there are no longer any "civilians" on either side, irrespective of how such a state came about. At that point, the moral considerations all come down to "who started it."
Which, I suppose, is the game: declare the conflict a total war, in which case you don't have to answer for terrorism, and then just concentrate on the big, sexy (and fraught-with-historical-and-ideological-perspective) issue of aggression. Only particular downside is that you have no moral basis on which to criticize enemy strikes on your "civilians." But if you hit the aggression point hard enough, mere partisan interest should still be sufficient to sustain you.
Bells
Staff member
It seems to me he is saying that one is more of a victim then the other. For example, Palestinians are the true victims of circumstance and of public policy both in Israel and in the West. He has issues considering the victims in 9/11 as victims because firstly, they are Westerners who vote for Government's that have always supported Israel and secondly, they are Westerners who benefit from the tyranny of others in oil producing countries.
He makes that distinction quite clear. In the other thread where this initially came up, Asguard took umbrage with my saying that the people who died in 9/11, the Bali bombings, the bombings in the UK and the embassy bombings in Africa, for example were innocent. To be innocent would make them victims and he does not seem to be able to view them as such because they are not victims like Palestinians are.
Therefore, it seems that his view is that while it's sad they died, they kind of brought it on themselves for not only driving cars and thereby supporting tyrants who govern oil producing countries, but they also vote and parties in the US and Australia and the UK tend to be very supportive of Israel against Palestinian rights. So either way, they are benefiting from the pain and loss of rights of others so they cannot be deemed innocent. Only babies and small children can be deemed innocent because they do not know any better and have no control but the adults supposedly did and do.
I find it to be a bit warped to be honest. I suppose in his view, they would only become victims if they had attempted to overthrow the Government and freed the Palestinians from their oppression. Otherwise they share the blame and thus, cannot be deemed innocent or victims if some lunatic millionaire living in Afghanistan (at the time) decides to fund other rich men to learn to fly and fly passenger jets into buildings full of office workers.
I know what he's saying - I'm asking him to put some force behind his assertions, and follow their implications.
It's extremely warped - not least in that it appoints OBL to the standing of rightful politico-military representative of Palestine, and Arabs/Muslims generally. Who voted for him? Why is the legitimacy of his megalomaniacal claims being endorsed? It might be a different story is somebody with legitimate standing to speak for Palestine was launching attacks on the USA.
I suppose - but I think the more interesting question is how people who have consistently voted against said policies, been activists against them, etc. fit into this calculus. If the inability to stop someone from doing something you oppose in your name makes you a valid target for retaliation for such, then aren't all of the people Bin Laden claims to be representing fair targets for US retaliation, irrespective of whether they support his policies or not? Is it just that the USA is a state, and Al Qaeda isn't? I'm not seeing where this logic wouldn't similarly endorse any given American (or, heck, anyone who wants to claim to be acting on America's behalf) killing any given Muslim (since they are unable to prevent Al Qaeda from killing Americans in their name).
Pakistan's ambassador to the USA, Hussain Haqqani, was on Charlie Rose last week, and put it fairly directly (IIRC): you can't just go around blowing people up because you have an issue with the world order.
And, again, I'd point out that there's a big leap involved in getting from "all citizens of a democracy share some responsibility for the actions of their government" to "there are no civilians in a democracy." One can bear a certain political and moral responsibility, without being a valid target for military strikes.
Last edited:
The belief that human beings are born innocent and the adult world corrupts them is a tiresome one. Innocence is not bestowed by blind nature's desire to be alive.
Not so at all. It is born a guilty entity living parasitical being.
The above ties in nicely to your last question about the wife spoiling herself, she represents and indicates that morality is a man-made concept and therefore does not apply to her selfish nature. Like Heath Ledger's Joker said, "we are only as good as the world allows us to be."
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. The baby exists because of actions taken by the parents. Specifically, they fucked.
There can be no guilt where there is no choice, particularly when the action (fucking) that led to the consequence (pregnancy) in question took place before the person you're blaming even existed!