On Tue, 21 May 1996 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> >This is not what I was saying. Of course if you are rich you are in a
> >position to prevent other people's poverty, and if you fail to do so then
> >that is your action. But this is not analogous to preventing
> >clitoridectomy or murder, both of which are intentional acts done by
> >other people.
>
> Of course the analogy holds. If you have the power to stop these practices
> then why not? Poverty, environmental degradation etc., all occur due to the
> intentional acts of persons. There is no logical difference between the two
> examples.
Here is the core of our disagreement. Although poverty and environmental
degradation occur _due_to_ intentional acts, those acts did not have the
intention of causing them. They are (usually unwanted) side-effects. For
example, if I go and buy a house I do not do it with the intention of
driving up the price of property, but because I want to live somewhere.
All the same, my intentional action has that effect. I doubt very much
that many people are deliberately trying to destroy the environment or to
immiserate others.
Clitoridectomy, on the other hand, is a practice as opposed to an
unintended side-effect. If you believe it is wrong, then by all means try
to stop it. But don't claim that Quetzil is causing a practice
about which he knows little and which he is not involved in.
> >Although those who failed to prevent the holocaust might have been able
> >to had they tried, those who actively took part in it were those who made
> >it happen.
>
> This just seems naive to me. It rests on a very individualistic-atomistic
> notion of responsibility. Those that let it happen, let it happen.
If you mean moral responsibility, then I'm not in a position to argue
because I cannot formulate a coherent notion of it. If
you mean causal responsibility, and treat humans (e.g. Quetzil) as free
(uncaused) agents, then I can see no other possibility than an individualistic
notion of responsibility.
> >
> >By default indifference position I mean that most people do not make
> >conscious efforts to influence the course of the majority of the world's
> >events. For example, I have done nothing to discourage the conflict in
> >the former Yugoslavia, nor have I attempted to stop the building of the
> >Newbury bypass. The list even of political events that I have not tried
> >to influence is endless.
>
> Again, I think this is naive. It nicely positions you as only complicit in
> acts you deem to be responsible, easily eliding your/my responsibility for
> events wider than one's primary horizon. Had everyone who cared enough done
> more about Yugoslavia and the Newbury bypass then maybe, just maybe, things
> might have turned out differently. We didn't and we got/get the world we
> create.
This last is quite true. I was not trying to exonerate myself from
any guilt imputed to me, or deny that my inaction causally affects things
just as my action does. I was simply saying that I have not made
conscious efforts to influence many world events.
To return to clitoridectomy and adult-child sex, perhaps if you wish
Quetzil to fight against either or both of these practices you should
formulate convincing arguments that they are fundamentally morally wrong
according to his code of ethics. If someone claims insufficient knowledge
to act, it is more useful to try to provide that knowledge than to
castigate her for moral laziness.
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995
>
> >
> >This is not what I was saying. Of course if you are rich you are in a
> >position to prevent other people's poverty, and if you fail to do so then
> >that is your action. But this is not analogous to preventing
> >clitoridectomy or murder, both of which are intentional acts done by
> >other people.
>
> Of course the analogy holds. If you have the power to stop these practices
> then why not? Poverty, environmental degradation etc., all occur due to the
> intentional acts of persons. There is no logical difference between the two
> examples.
Here is the core of our disagreement. Although poverty and environmental
degradation occur _due_to_ intentional acts, those acts did not have the
intention of causing them. They are (usually unwanted) side-effects. For
example, if I go and buy a house I do not do it with the intention of
driving up the price of property, but because I want to live somewhere.
All the same, my intentional action has that effect. I doubt very much
that many people are deliberately trying to destroy the environment or to
immiserate others.
Clitoridectomy, on the other hand, is a practice as opposed to an
unintended side-effect. If you believe it is wrong, then by all means try
to stop it. But don't claim that Quetzil is causing a practice
about which he knows little and which he is not involved in.
> >Although those who failed to prevent the holocaust might have been able
> >to had they tried, those who actively took part in it were those who made
> >it happen.
>
> This just seems naive to me. It rests on a very individualistic-atomistic
> notion of responsibility. Those that let it happen, let it happen.
If you mean moral responsibility, then I'm not in a position to argue
because I cannot formulate a coherent notion of it. If
you mean causal responsibility, and treat humans (e.g. Quetzil) as free
(uncaused) agents, then I can see no other possibility than an individualistic
notion of responsibility.
> >
> >By default indifference position I mean that most people do not make
> >conscious efforts to influence the course of the majority of the world's
> >events. For example, I have done nothing to discourage the conflict in
> >the former Yugoslavia, nor have I attempted to stop the building of the
> >Newbury bypass. The list even of political events that I have not tried
> >to influence is endless.
>
> Again, I think this is naive. It nicely positions you as only complicit in
> acts you deem to be responsible, easily eliding your/my responsibility for
> events wider than one's primary horizon. Had everyone who cared enough done
> more about Yugoslavia and the Newbury bypass then maybe, just maybe, things
> might have turned out differently. We didn't and we got/get the world we
> create.
This last is quite true. I was not trying to exonerate myself from
any guilt imputed to me, or deny that my inaction causally affects things
just as my action does. I was simply saying that I have not made
conscious efforts to influence many world events.
To return to clitoridectomy and adult-child sex, perhaps if you wish
Quetzil to fight against either or both of these practices you should
formulate convincing arguments that they are fundamentally morally wrong
according to his code of ethics. If someone claims insufficient knowledge
to act, it is more useful to try to provide that knowledge than to
castigate her for moral laziness.
Dave Hugh-Jones So what's it all about Alfie? Have you ever seen the
dash2@xxxxxxxxx moon? It's a little whitish bluish thing that floats
about the sky. It's very very round and "they" say
that man invented the wheel.
Homeless person, 1995