Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ethics question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    More that I've seen enough people differentiating between democrat support for BLM riots and Trump's speech by claiming that it's different because "Trump lied"
    So, it was about Trump.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    So, it's about Trump.
    More that I've seen enough people differentiating between democrat support for BLM riots and Trump's speech by claiming that it's different because "Trump lied"

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    The theme I see in answers (and also what I believe) is that the truth of my words are irrelevant to my culpability. Instead my culpability revolves around A. My Action, B. Whether I should have reasonably expected a violent reaction, and C. My motive in taking the action
    So, it's about Trump.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    It would be argued that malice was a factor. Possibly even "acting in concert" or conspiring.



    Absent malice.



    I think it goes more to the notion that you KNEW the words were true or false. We can tell somebody something that we believe to be true, that is, in reality, false.
    The theme I see in answers (and also what I believe) is that the truth of my words are irrelevant to my culpability. Instead my culpability revolves around A. My Action, B. Whether I should have reasonably expected a violent reaction, and C. My motive in taking the action

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Here's a hypothetical for you.

    Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

    Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?

    Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
    Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

    In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
    Unless you had good reason to know that Fred would respond violently, I can't see how you could be held responsible for his response even if you knew what you were saying was a lie.

    On the other hand, if you knew that Fred was the type who could be provoked into a murderous rage, and it was your intent to antagonize him, then you would be at least partially culpable even if what you told him was true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    Alice had every right in the world to have lunch with Charlie. She was not married to Fred.

    And Fred was 100% responsible for his own actions. Unless he were a Democrat, in which case whatever weapon he used was 100% responsible. Then again, if Alice and Charlie were black or Hispanic, and Fred were white, then Fred would be 100% responsible, regardless of what the weapon was.

    However, if Alice and Charlie were white and Fred were black or Hispanic, then it would have been Alice's and Charlie's fault for inciting a riot.

    Your only culpability was in telling Fred. Unless you worked for the New York Times of Washington Post, in which case it was your right (and actual responsibility) to make this known to Fred, regardless of what the consequences or outcome would be.
    Good one!

    Leave a comment:


  • Faber
    replied
    Alice had every right in the world to have lunch with Charlie. She was not married to Fred.

    And Fred was 100% responsible for his own actions. Unless he were a Democrat, in which case whatever weapon he used was 100% responsible. Then again, if Alice and Charlie were black or Hispanic, and Fred were white, then Fred would be 100% responsible, regardless of what the weapon was.

    However, if Alice and Charlie were white and Fred were black or Hispanic, then it would have been Alice's and Charlie's fault for inciting a riot.

    Your only culpability was in telling Fred. Unless you worked for the New York Times of Washington Post, in which case it was your right (and actual responsibility) to make this known to Fred, regardless of what the consequences or outcome would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    This is about Trump inciting the riot at the Capitol, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
    It would be argued that malice was a factor. Possibly even "acting in concert" or conspiring.

    Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?
    Absent malice.

    In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
    I think it goes more to the notion that you KNEW the words were true or false. We can tell somebody something that we believe to be true, that is, in reality, false.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Good question. I think if it can be proven that you were purposefully manipulating him into committing murder like actually talking him into it, or "brainwashing" him, inciting him, then you could be held responsible, kinda like Charles Manson. Merely lying to him that his wife was having an affair, I don't think you would be legally responsible for his actions. He could have just divorced her, right?

    Incitement of violence is a thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Here's a hypothetical for you.

    Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

    Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?
    I think that would depend at least partly on whether you could have reasonably guessed what Fred's response would be, and whether that was your intent.

    Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
    Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

    In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
    Whether your words were true or false could be taken into account in determining what your intent was in making the statement. And if they were false, that could be considered a separate, and possibly compounding, moral failure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    I think it comes down to the notion of "knowingly" creating a situation in which violence could reasonably be a result.

    However - individual responsibility is a principle that Fred committed the crime - murder - which is his own burden to bear.

    Were you complicit? That would come down to whether it can be shown that you knew that murder might be a likely outcome of your statement.

    Another concept -- did Fred go immediately murder them (a crime of passion) or plan revenge (premeditated murder).

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    started a topic Ethics question

    Ethics question

    Here's a hypothetical for you.

    Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

    Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?

    Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
    Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

    In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 05:37 PM
7 responses
44 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 04:25 PM
11 responses
50 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:56 AM
11 responses
98 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 08:05 AM
44 responses
181 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:27 AM
23 responses
102 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Working...
X