the Problem of Moral Responsibility

[Hidden]

There is a question within our moral system that has bothered me for some time--how far does our moral responsibility extend? What distance is there between an action and a consequence where we are still morally culpable, and at what point are we are simply playing six degrees of separation? Does responsibility for, say, the Holocaust stop at the troops who carried out the executions, at the commanders who gave the orders, at Hitler and his circle that planned the mass extermination of peoples, at the people who stood aside and did not resist, or even further?

Here is the conflict as I see it--the recognition of moral responsibility is necessary, as we do have an impact upon (and are a part of) the world and people around us through our actions and their consequences; at the same time, to assume moral responsibility is to also assume a degree of control over that world and those people that we do not (/should not) necessarily have. How do we reconcile these moral limits?


I put here a few cases where this conflict appears--they are all taken from an old thread, "Capital Punishment" (the first should be credited to the author of that thread, Duality).


1. A similar analogy can be presented in the case of selling knives. Suppose you sold a knife to an 18 year old. You explain to him in the fullest of details how to properly use the knife, and not to use it for any other reasons. A week later you found out that very same knife killed someone. Of course, it's not your fault, despite the fact that it is your job to tell the kid otherwise. The knife is in the kid's hands, and he stabbed the person. Not you.

2. A similar view of responsibility is displayed in Greek mythology with the overthrow of Cronus. Cronus had castrated his own father, Uranus, and overthrew him to take his position; however, in doing so, Cronus doomed himself to the same fate by his own children (it was for this reason he attempted to eat them all at birth). When Zeus confronted Cronus, however, he did not kill him by his own hand alone--he took the aid of the Cyclops and his siblings, and in this way the doom was spread thin among all of them and did not bring any one of them to ruin as it had the previous generation. Responsibility, in effect, was dissipated among their number so that no one god was guilty.

3. There also was a certain type of prison employed once for the truly considerable nuisances of society known as the oubliette. The word takes its origin from the French verb oublier, "to forget." A man who needed to be forgotten was placed in this all-but-inaccessible prison and generally left to starve. But the point was more than simply the man's removal, which could have been accomplished just as easily with more conventional methods; those who put this man into the oubliette did not want to be responsible for killing him--so, they simply put him down in the dungeon and "forgot." They do not kill anyone, and the man almost certainly dies within days; the perfect solution.

4. An issue even more intriguing because of its immediate relevance to the topic is this--I suspect a number of people have already heard that the Chinese government has sentenced Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of the food and drug agency, to death for crimes related to the outbreaks of disease and fatalities following the widespread release of unsafe food products. This is capital punishment employed in the case of a man who did not pull a trigger, whereas the United States law system would likely give him a slap on the wrist and sentence him to find another multi-million job with a private company.

http://forums.khinsider.com/intel/84...unishment.html

How far should or can a person extend moral responsibility in each of these cases? What degree of control must be assumed to take on this responsibility?

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Hidden

Cronus had castrated his own father

Originally Posted by Hidden

his own children (it was for this reason he attempted to eat them all at birth).

what the fuck

[Hidden]

Greek mythology; the passage of power is always difficult.

[Joy]

Hmm...

It cannot be determined. Such a question is, indeed, only answerable by individuals themselves. No one answer can be given amongst billions of people. The idea of blame, the question, why did it happen, is traced back to the beginning of the universe. If that electron went to the hydrogen atoms on the left as opposed to the right could have saved billions of lives.

...but then we bring in sentience. Which brings blame into it. Hmm. Well, who's to blame for the stabbings. The person who sold the knife. The killer. The man who had witnessed it and ran. Or the victim himself. Truly, this question is just a matter of perspective, isn't it? A question regarding an intangible subject using tangible beings is all dependent on the person answering the question.

Is there not an answer?

[Square Ninja]

tl;dr

Hidden is actually alive.

[Bleeding Soul]

Hmm. Freeman does have a bit of a point, but I see things differently.

For starters, the bit about the knife, I would have to say that the blame would have to fall upon the man that stabbed the person. My reasoning behind this is the simple fact that the dealer did his job and told the man not to use the knife for instances such as killing. I also say that the blame falls onto the stabber for the fact that did not find an alternative means to come to terms with the man. There are a near infinate options availiable but are limited to what the stabbed did to push the stabber into using the knife against him. But say that the man was caught having sex with the stabber's wife/girl friend. A reasonable and practical solution would be to sever all tie with the man so as to not harm him or yourself. But if the fault were to rest in the arms of the woman, break up and avoid her or divorce her. I understand that the latter is rather expensive, my own mom and step dad are goin' through one right now, but with the right initiative, it can be easily accomplished.

With the bit about Greek Mythology, I get from that a method of teaching war tactics to the younger generation and to remind the older generations. It shows that a single man overthrew his ruler, his father in this case, and took his place. This shows that a single man can grow to incredible strength. But then Zeus and his siblings and the Cyclops shows another point. "A single man may be strong, but an army is invincible." This shows that those with the advantage of numbers are normally the ones to be victorious. However I do realize that there have been many cases in which it was not numbers that one, but tactics and a drive to victory. Such a case is in the movie 300 which was based on the acutal campaign raged between the Spartans and the Persians, I think that's who they fought against. When Cronus tried to eat his own children, that showed fear. And when one experiences fear, they become sloppy and ineffective.

However, based on what has been said on that subject, Zeus and his allies had an ever greater force. That force is their kinship. The ineffectiveness of fear was outdone by the advantages of numbers an their own connection to one another. And their connection was stronger here because of the fact that the human brain establishes a deeper connection with siblings rather than parental figures, at least from what I've seen. Once again, drive and kinship leads me to the Spartans. They were fighting to protect their home from invaders and to protect their fellow warriors, which many were family.

As for the case of the prison, that is a case where I would have to put the blame on the judge. I say this because of the fact that the judge is the one that would order the man to go to such a place. Now I do realize that back then a judge could be anyone with power but that doesn't change what I see. As we do now, they had multiple ways to punish a man for doing something terrible. To this day we still use the electric chair which tortures the person before actually killing him/her and we have the letal injections which uses no pain other than the pin prick. Now I myself am a firm believer in this but we'll save that for another thread. But back to my point. They too had multiple way that were both instant and those that were painful. Such case is the guilotine. One swift motion that severed the head, instant death with no pain thanks to the speed. Another non-instant and painful was a type of clensing where the man would be strapped to a table and have his innard pulled out while still awake. Another non-instant is this device that crushed the human skull. The first thing that would break is the jaw and finally the actual skull. It pays to watch the Discovery Channel.

Now with the case of Zheng Xiaoyu, that is once again followed with the fact that it would depend on circumstances. At the minimum, the man should be imprissoned and then an investigation should be conducted. If there was no evidence of the man knowing about what happened until it was too late but kept quiet about it for a little amount of time, imprissonment and seizure of his assets should be taken. But if he didn't know about it but found out through one of his superiors, immediate release and a public apology. At this point, another investigation should be held to find out who did take notice of this and to punish the man or woman for the charges for not relaying the message to those that he or she was required to. Well, that's my two cents worth. Take it as you will.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

tl;dr

What does this actually mean?

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

Hidden is actually alive.

You sound like Phoenix now.

That important note out of the way, returning to the topic. Dr. Freeman (formerly Time?) does spot a certain "over-exuberance" to my question, perhaps an unattainable ambition--to mark the moral boundaries of every human being on the face of this earth. Perhaps this is not a "moral control" we should seek to establish over the whole population.

However, even in saying that it is a problem for the individual, we have to at least have some idea of how the individual might start to determine this moral responsibility for him or her self. Where do we begin--by taking upon ourselves the cross of all humanity's sins, or burning it to the ground and declaring the Nuremberg Trials a sham? We cannot claim to have no sense of this problem--we exist in the society of humankind, and must therefore find a place and a morality that allow for our existence here. In effect, we need an answer, and we need to be able to share this answer with others.

Originally Posted by Dr. Freeman

...but then we bring in sentience. Which brings blame into it.

This especially interests me. Why is it sentience that brings in blame, and what difference is there between blame and responsibility?

Umazak gives an interesting response that takes the thread in a different direction, so I'll try to address that here without becoming too sidetracked. In all of the cases excluding the one from Greek mythology, your response seems focused on how a person should act (or be acted upon) in each given scenario. This is of course the primary question of moral choice--how we make decisions of action.

This automatically assumes that we must take responsibility for those actions--otherwise we could hardly consider them actions or choices at all. What I am specifically interested in is how far our responsibility extends for actions already taken. Forget whether the action itself was right or wrong*, how far down the chain of consequences does it still reflect back on the individual who took that action? (*Though we might have to consider whether an action removed from its consequences can be right or wrong.)

You do mix your thoughts on responsibility into the response, though only in two cases I can identify explicitly:

Originally Posted by umazak

For starters, the bit about the knife, I would have to say that the blame would have to fall upon the man that stabbed the person. My reasoning behind this is the simple fact that the dealer did his job and told the man not to use the knife for instances such as killing. I also say that the blame falls onto the stabber for the fact that did not find an alternative means to come to terms with the man.

Originally Posted by umazak

As for the case of the prison, that is a case where I would have to put the blame on the judge. I say this because of the fact that the judge is the one that would order the man to go to such a place.

In both of these cases, you use the term "blame," which goes back to my question to Dr. Freeman--what is the difference between blame and responsibility?

It also seems that in both cases you determine the extent of moral responsibility in a similar (if not identical) way--the fulfillment of some moral obligation. In the case of the knife, the knife seller fulfilled his moral obligation ("did his job") in telling the man how and how not to use the knife--this seemingly absolves him of moral responsibility for the immoral use of the knife. The knife wielder, however, did not fulfill his moral obligation, to "find an alternative means to come to terms with the man"--it is for this reason (not just that he physically stabbed someone) that moral responsibility falls upon him for his action.

In the case of the prison, responsibility (/blame) falls upon the judge for his failure to fulfill another moral obligation--the obligation to provide a quick and painless death to the criminal. The fact that he does not physically kill the criminal is therefore irrelevant.

Is this what you are saying--that moral responsibility is brought on by a failure to fulfill certain moral obligations?

[Bleeding Soul]

Originally Posted by Hidden

that moral responsibility is brought on by a failure to fulfill certain moral obligations?

No, not really. Because in my experiences, I have found that a responsibility and an obligation are the same thing. Such can be applied to everyday life. Say that a child has a chore to take out the garbage. It is his obligation to remove the trash and put it where it belongs and his responsibility for propper disposal of the trash by setting it out next to the road or burning it, whichever method you prefer.

What I am saying, however, is that lack of moral character is brought about by the failure to fulfill a certain moral obligation.

[violent_anger]

I actually heard that Prometheus prophesied that Zeus would also be killed by his own child, and his replacement would be the ultimate god forever after. It was in one of those mythology books.


As for the knife, I don't see how the dealer could possibly be responsible. For all he knew, the kid was using the knife to cook a delicious steak dinner for his family. At the time of purchase, he has no way of knowing the kid will murder someone, and has no reason to refuse service. Telling the kid to be careful with it is really all the man can do.

Uh...that's all I got.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by umazak

No, not really. Because in my experiences, I have found that a responsibility and an obligation are the same thing. Such can be applied to everyday life. Say that a child has a chore to take out the garbage. It is his obligation to remove the trash and put it where it belongs and his responsibility for propper disposal of the trash by setting it out next to the road or burning it, whichever method you prefer.

Ah, there is a confusion of diction that I did not properly address. When I speak of responsibility, specifically moral responsibility, I mean the connection between a person and the consequences of his actions--what you term "blame" in your earlier post, though it's not necessarily negative in all cases. Theoretically, I could even remove the person altogether and simply address the connection between an action and its consequences, but let's keep a human element.

To put these terms in your example above: if the child did not do his chore and take out the trash, we would likely say that he was responsible for the trash not being properly disposed of that day; he would be 'morally' responsible for that consequence. How far does that moral responsibility extend, however? If a family member got sick with the old trash in the house, would the child be morally responsible for that? Or if the trash collector did not actually come the day that the child did not bring out the trash--would the child still responsible for its not being disposed of?

Originally Posted by umazak

What I am saying, however, is that lack of moral character is brought about by the failure to fulfill a certain moral obligation.

I understand this now.

Originally Posted by violent_anger

I actually heard that Prometheus prophesied that Zeus would also be killed by his own child, and his replacement would be the ultimate god forever after. It was in one of those mythology books.

Interesting, I hadn't known this part--my own knowledge of Greek mythology is very fragmentary.

Originally Posted by violent_anger

As for the knife, I don't see how the dealer could possibly be responsible. For all he knew, the kid was using the knife to cook a delicious steak dinner for his family. At the time of purchase, he has no way of knowing the kid will murder someone, and has no reason to refuse service. Telling the kid to be careful with it is really all the man can do.

So your argument to alleviate the knife dealer of moral responsibility for the stabbing is that he couldn't have reasonably done anything more to divert it? There is a point at which a person may raise his hands, say "I've done everything I could," and separate himself from the moral repurcussions of any consequences to follow? This is intriguing--where is that point in the other three cases given?

[Hokage]

Originally Posted by Hidden

1. A similar analogy can be presented in the case of selling knives. Suppose you sold a knife to an 18 year old. You explain to him in the fullest of details how to properly use the knife, and not to use it for any other reasons. A week later you found out that very same knife killed someone. Of course, it's not your fault, despite the fact that it is your job to tell the kid otherwise. The knife is in the kid's hands, and he stabbed the person. Not you.

2. A similar view of responsibility is displayed in Greek mythology with the overthrow of Cronus. Cronus had castrated his own father, Uranus, and overthrew him to take his position; however, in doing so, Cronus doomed himself to the same fate by his own children (it was for this reason he attempted to eat them all at birth). When Zeus confronted Cronus, however, he did not kill him by his own hand alone--he took the aid of the Cyclops and his siblings, and in this way the doom was spread thin among all of them and did not bring any one of them to ruin as it had the previous generation. Responsibility, in effect, was dissipated among their number so that no one god was guilty.

3. There also was a certain type of prison employed once for the truly considerable nuisances of society known as the oubliette. The word takes its origin from the French verb oublier, "to forget." A man who needed to be forgotten was placed in this all-but-inaccessible prison and generally left to starve. But the point was more than simply the man's removal, which could have been accomplished just as easily with more conventional methods; those who put this man into the oubliette did not want to be responsible for killing him--so, they simply put him down in the dungeon and "forgot." They do not kill anyone, and the man almost certainly dies within days; the perfect solution.

4. An issue even more intriguing because of its immediate relevance to the topic is this--I suspect a number of people have already heard that the Chinese government has sentenced Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of the food and drug agency, to death for crimes related to the outbreaks of disease and fatalities following the widespread release of unsafe food products. This is capital punishment employed in the case of a man who did not pull a trigger, whereas the United States law system would likely give him a slap on the wrist and sentence him to find another multi-million job with a private company.

1. My view on the knife example is that the person who stabbed the victim is "to blame" and is responsible for the murder. Although, the person who sold the knife also has a tie to the moral responsibility because he was the one who sold the knife. If I had sold a knife to a person and even if I preached to them the proper procedure and maintenance of the knife, if it was used for murder there would always be a part of me that associated myself with the murder in a significant way. The person would ask themselves, "Why did I sell him this knife and if I had not, would it have made a difference?" Morally, most people would think he has no reason to be attached to the murder but in technical terms, he provided the killer with the instrument to do the deed. There is no way to tell whether the killer would have done that with or without the knife being sold to him, but it was and he used it for murder so the knife seller will always be partly responsible for the murder however insignificant the general majority thinks it is.

2. Mot really sure how to go about this one, but I'll take a crack at it. According to my google searches on the matter, and wikipedia.. Cronus overthrew his father because of his greed for power yet Zeus overthrew hsi father, moreso for the safety of himself and his siblings than the actual power he would recieve. The moral blame falls on Cronus due to his fascination with the power his father held. The prophecy of doom stated that his own offspring would rise against Cronus, yet this would most likely not have happened had he not taken this prophecy to heart and actively pursued the contianment of his children. Had he not swallowed his children, Zeus's mother Rhea would not have hid Zeus from Cronos and Zeus would not have grown to dislike Cronos and wish to overthrow him. Lots of if and buts biut in this case, Zeus overthrew Cronos for his safety and the safety/freedom of his siblings, while Cronos did it for the power. Morally speaking, this shoves the responsibility more in Cronos's hands.

3.The people who places this man in prison are responsible for this mans death. They took away his liberties and freedoms by placing him in this prison and basicallty tried to "wash their hands of him". Can't be 100% certain but he most liekly he would not be in that situation to starve and die had it not been for thier actions. They are orally responsible for the malnourishment which contributed to his death. Even if they "left him there" it was their actions which resulted in the circumstances leading to thier death. The blame doesn't only fall if the killer physically kills the victim with his hands. A example of this would be something similar to this.

I steal a car, joy ride it for a bit and then leave it on a remote cliff somewhere because I'm bored. Hell it's not my car, why should I care.The car is hit by the wind and tips over the cliff later on that day after I've left. A man is walking on the bottom of the cliff and the car hits him and injures his organs which results in him dying.I say it's not my fault because it wasn't my car and I didn't push the car. I can't say I'm not to blame since I did steal the car and put it on the edge of a cliff. That most likely would not have happened had I not stolen the car. It did happen though, so the moral responsibility falls on the car theif who placed the circumstances that contributed to the death of the man in place.

4.Zheng Xiaoyu was the head overseer of the Food and Drgug Administration in China right? So his job was to essentially provide guidance and over see all products going into the country. Now we all know corporations are huge and for one man to be responsible for the safety of every product going into a country such as China is theroretically impossible. But, as much as that is true, it was still his job to oversee the whole operation. It was his job. Sure, he has supervisors and managers to lower the amount of work he does but it was his responsibility to oversee each product and due to him not doing his job to the utmost, a few produucts slipped by and caused great controversy. He is partly responsible for the implications those products created. As well as the manufactuerers of the products, the workers who tested the products, the managers those workers reported to, as well as the supervisors who the managers reported to. Everyone inherits the responsibility, although not in equal amounts as the case with Zheng Xiaoyu. Since he was the central figure in this operation, he recieves the most blame because public opinion has shown that the public needs a central figure ot blame when things go wrong such as President Bush and the Iraq War. Of course he had a part in the operation, a very large part, but so did Congress but they are hardly ever mentioned when discussion comes up about the war on Iraq. Why? Because President Bush is the central figure, the President of the U.S., the commander in cheif. Although Congress is just as much to blame as him, people throw the majority on Bush to satisfy their need for a central figure to rally against. With Zheng Xiaoyu, the employees under him are as much to fault as he, but since he's the central figure the moral responsibility, at least in the public's eye solely rests upon himself.

Sorry for the massive post size, I kinda got on a roll and couldn't stop <_<. I really like this discussion though and I can't dismiss a request by one of the members I respect the most on this forum a.k.a. Hidden. Anyways, that's my view on those 4 examples. Feel free to discuss.

[Ryu]

While I often love to conjure up long posts, I'm afraid that a topic like this will make me, just like others, go on a rampage. So for the sake of speed you'll notice I've simplified the description of some of the following examples - although why get in a debate with someone like Hidden if you want to rush through it.

1) 1 kill, 1 culprit, the only other person to consider is the dealer.

The dealer's done everything right, blaming him for the murder would set a precedent for other cases, such as kids dropping their mom's watermelons off the bridge onto a highway and blaming the grocery store clerk for the deaths caused. Simple as that. One could however wonder why the dealer didn't refuse the sale, if an 18 year old wanders into a local warehouse and buys nothing but a large steak knife, I'm sure the clerk would have some inner conflict as well whether to call his manager or not. But the fact remains that there are millions of ways to kill someone, and unless the dealer had a mind control device, he's free of charge.

2) 1 kill, several culprits, 'dissipated guilt' amongst the guilty.

While you could view party #1 as the most responsible one for calling in the help of others, if the other parties seemed to have no qualms with the idea then they are all just as guilty and carry as much responsibility for the kill. Of course, if this were a real case, no party will turn out as responsible as the other because there will be other factors into play no doubt. Peer pressure, threats, etc. That is most likely why these cases always take an age and a half. Going through the same debate and discuss who is most and who is less responsible while keeping all the 'variables' in mind. No case and no example is the same, Hidden's base-question has to be asked again and again with each single case.

3) no kill, only agonizing torture.

This one is more interesting to me personally because it seems to me that any reasonable person would choose a swift death over agonizing torture followed by death. Which proves that just because there is no clean kill, doesn't make the executors any less guilty or responsible for what they did. Personally I would much rather pull the trigger to kill someone, rather than dumping him in a hole and leaving him to die. Granted, the act of pulling the trigger would feel much harder to do at that moment, but having a clean shot on your conscience is something different than knowing you've left a man to die. Regardless, while I assume the 'nuisance' had it coming to say the least (so you could place the responsibility at his feet instead of the executor's, then again I assume that debate is for another time), the lack of a clean kill does not mean the lack of responsibility for that person's imminent death.

4) a more interesting case and one harder to analyze and judge than the others, and I have to say I've not followed this case intensely, so I don't think I can say much about it. But once again I feel the argument here ties into the previous story, just because there wasn't a bullet that travelled from point A to point B, doesn't mean the absence of responsibility.

I think in the end, most, if not all, these cases come down to the mere principle that if you are aware that one of your actions or inactions will directly cause, or aid in, the death of a fellow human being, you're responsible. The knife dealer was unaware of the outcome of the story; while Zeus, the frenchy and Zheng Xiaoyu were all aware that they were affecting a person's life in such a negative way that it meant death. No matter how far back you want to trace a pattern of responsibility, as long as those involved are aware they're causing harm, you can put responsibility at their feet as well.

[Q]

1. The clerk has no way of knowing if the person is going to commit the crime. He shouldn't associate himself with the crime - he was simply doing his job, and that job is selling things to customers, whether they are good Samaritans or soon-to-be psychopaths.

2. Not only did Zeus gather up his friends, brothers and sisters to fight, but Cronos did the same with his brothers and sisters - thus, the responsibility may have been spread out even more, for rather than merely overthrowing Cronos, individuals in the group could say they were taking out their personal enemies. The wrath of the gods would probably not be brought down upon them, considering Cronos' brothers and sisters allowed him to eat Gaia's babies, and the brothers and sisters of Zeus were probably pretty pissed about that.

3. Most people in this situation don't really forget - the stigma towards a long, torturous death is that it is far worse to execute than a quick clean kill, due to the measurement of pain inflicted by both actions. But going by the way of simply "forgetting," I could see how easy this would become to men who were used to it.

4. Don't know much about this situation, but in this case he WASN'T doing his job - and as a result it would be perfectly fine to kick him out.

That's my two cents on this whole issue.

[Hidden]

"For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail."
How far does the horseshoe maker's moral responsibility extend?

1. The knife dealer. This is the poster case; Duality put it forward with the view that moral responsibility for an action is limited to the individual actually committing the action. In our later cases, however, we seem to reject this moral limit. Our reasons to defend the knife dealer, then, differ, but I like what Hokage brings up:

Originally Posted by Hokage

The person would ask themselves, "Why did I sell him this knife and if I had not, would it have made a difference?" [...] There is no way to tell whether the killer would have done that with or without the knife being sold to him, but it was and he used it for murder so the knife seller will always be partly responsible for the murder however insignificant the general majority thinks it is.

The knife dealer does play a role, and very likely recognizes it; he enables the person to commit the act, even absent intention. I offer this challenge then--does the recognition of one's role in a course of events not automatically confer some degree of moral responsibility for the progression of that course, however miniscule?

Originally Posted by Q

He shouldn't associate himself with the crime - he was simply doing his job, and that job is selling things to customers, whether they are good Samaritans or soon-to-be psychopaths.

Fair enough for the knife dealer; what about arms dealers?

2. Greek gods. Admittedly, this is the most difficult to approach from the angle of moral responsibility, but I think Ryu finds and dispels the point of view espoused--that there is a finite amount of responsibility for any given action, and to place responsibility on one cause is to take responsibility off another. The idea that guilt for patricide could be "dissipated" among many so that no single person really bears moral responsibility (or the mythological consequences of it) is not something we really hold to. Thus, we must take as a possibility that there exists an infinite amount of responsibility for a given action, that could extend to an infinite number of causes--which is kind of concerning if we want to establish limits to moral responsibility.

3. The oubliette. Be cautious here. The case seems straightforward, but I think its question is the most complicated, and also the most important. And as Q points out, its acceptance could be very easy if one is used to it.

What the oubliette does is it creates the conditions in which it is impossible for the prisoner to live. It does not actually kill him--malnutrition, disease, or perhaps even some wild animal that finds him down there does that. Rather than an out-and-out device of execution, it is a device of control--it places the prisoner in a position where he cannot act, even for self-preservation.

All posters have stated that responsibility does lie on the person who sets up these conditions, but I'm not sure we've taken the question to its full extent. The greatest rates of crime occur under the conditions of poverty; horrible acts may be sanctified in the condition of war; the world itself imposes its all-too-imperfect conditions upon each of us, under which we must find some way to act and to live, and we have very different ways of doing that. The question is, to what extent are the conditions -or rather the persons or gods that set up those conditions- morally responsible for the actions and consequences that occur, such as those that occur within the oubliette?

4. Zheng Xiaoyu. What separates him from the knife dealer?

Hokage brings up an interesting point related to Ryu's reading of the Greek mythology--responsibility actually extends to every worker and manager involved, and Zheng Xiaoyu is largely made the scapegoat. But also remember--Zheng Xiaoyu was put to death for this. I am aware that this moves conversation a bit to the side of what we have been discussing, but does he seem to bear enough moral responsibility for the deaths caused to warrant such a sentencing?


This engagement of the cases is excellent, precisely what I was hoping for; my thanks for all contributions. But there is more.

Originally Posted by Ryu

I think in the end, most, if not all, these cases come down to the mere principle that if you are aware that one of your actions or inactions will directly cause, or aid in, the death of a fellow human being, you're responsible. The knife dealer was unaware of the outcome of the story; while Zeus, the frenchy and Zheng Xiaoyu were all aware that they were affecting a person's life in such a negative way that it meant death. No matter how far back you want to trace a pattern of responsibility, as long as those involved are aware they're causing harm, you can put responsibility at their feet as well.

This is our first attempt to define the extent of moral responsibility (actually a bit earlier than I had thought we would deal with this). Is it acceptable?

[Bleeding Soul]

Originally Posted by Hidden

If a family member got sick with the old trash in the house, would the child be morally responsible for that? Or if the trash collector did not actually come the day that the child did not bring out the trash--would the child still responsible for its not being disposed of?

Acutally, it does befall the child because of the fact that he/she did not take out the trash. Regardless of whether or not the collectors came and got it as scheduled, the sick family member would be at cause of the effect. The man that collects the garbage is not at fault, or so one would think, unless he was on strike at the time. I have actually recently gone through a similar scenario where it was my obligation to take the trash out to the road. The effects of my not taking it to the road as that I missed the collector and the loss of fuel for the only available vehicle to have the trash taken directly to a dumb to be disposed of.