Maybe I didn’t explain myself well. Hitler is definitely morally horrible, but it wouldn’t be just to apply violence against him, since he did not use violence himself.
You can’t use a person as a weapon, because a rational actor has a will. Therefore setting a trap might be indirection for which I do not absolve, but pursuation is not indirection in the sense that it is not even related to crime. Whenever a rational actor is part of the chain of events, the chain breaks, and another chain opens.
It might be helpful to look at the thread that already exists in which this discussion already took place. (In fact, it would be helpful if you looked back through the forum before posting any thread…as nearly every one you’ve started is an essential repeat where you just change a couple of terms…some even being repeats of your own past threads)
“You can’t use a person as a weapon, because a rational actor has a will.”
Why can’t you use someone with a will as a weapon? They are still perfectly accountable (depending upon the threat to them) for their actions, but so is the man who ordered the killings. They would not have died had he not ordered the killing, he used others as a weapon of force against the victim just as he would a gun. The fact that these people have wills to merely adds an extra level of blame to the problem like two people pulling the same trigger at the same time would.
Careful there. If you’re going to go that far, where do you draw the line? Suppose I wrote a book saying that all thieves should be killed…and someone is convinced by my words and goes on a shooting spree. “They would not have died” if not for my book. Sounds to me like you’re saying I have blood on my hands.
For more fun, let’s assume I didn’t even say anything about killing. What if I just wrote a book about how reprehensible it was to steal. I didn’t advocate any violence, I just talked about how bad acts of theft were…and someone was inspired to kill because they were convinced thieves were evil, entirely due to what I wrote. Again, “they would not have died”, but for my words. My fault?
What if I wrote “peace to all the Earth, and glory be to God” and someone interpreted that to mean every living thing should be killed, since that’s the only true way to have peace.
I think people are a bit too tied up defending their side instead of carrying out Eugene’s own logic to its pointless conclusion:
Alright, Eugene. Assume that ordering the death of others is not illegal. Hence, it is an “allowable” social action. Hence, it can be a means of solving perceived problems in society.
Now, Hitler is supposedly not unethical but highly displeasing. Solution? We hire a hitman to kill him in turn. See what we did there? We carried out the same exact punishment while staying within the bounds of ethics.
Hence, your idea is pointless as it leads to the same conclusion.
What if Hitler was considered unethical? What then? What if it was considered immoral to purposefully persuade someone to act out aggression, how should someone who does so be punished? Or should they?
I ascribe to the idea that causation is as bad as the crime, and hence whatever the punishment for the actual action is is the same punishment for directly inciting that action. In this case, I might suggest lifelong servitude.
Law itself is a dangerous path, but one that we must travel.
I can understand your concern, but the fact is that one cannot deny that the reasons for certain deaths are in part because of concious decisions of men to kill someone. A mafia boss is certainly the reason that a number of men are killed or stolen from. Mere interpretation does not matter in the same way that someone stepping on secret panel that causes someone’s house to explode doesn’t matter. Someone cannot be held accountable if there isn’t a totally understandable and predictable reason why it is that one’s action would result in death or crime against someone.
Talking about an act doesn’t mean that one is commanding the person to do it, there are obvious differences between commanding someone to do something with good reason to believe that it will come to pass with your command and simply talking about it. One which any judge is likely to understand (if they don’t we’re going to have problems of a sort no matter what the law is)
If I write ‘peace and love to all’ and somone interpreted it to mean ‘kill your wife and family’ then how could I be held accountable? Those words obviously don’t mean that and weren’t used in a context that could suggest that to a normal person. If that is a crime then so must an act of inadvertant murder or crime which could not have been predicted. The difference between what I wrote and a gang boss saying ‘go and kill person X’ are very obvious.
Fine. “You’re overstepping.” Even if it’s just due to poor wording.
As understandable by whom? Predictable according to whom?
Obviously?
So for you the whole thing is just a matter of interpretation. I could simply say “x should be shot”, but it would just be up to your feelings to determine whether or not I should be held responsible if x does in fact get shot.
A continuation on what you yourself had said. Law is dangerous because we allow one group of people control over another group of people, but it’s necessary for the continuation of human society.
“As understandable by whom? Predictable according to whom?”
I would say by the normal person, within reason decided by arbitration, just as all law inevitably is.
“So for you the whole thing is just a matter of interpretation. I could simply say “x should be shot”, but it would just be up to your feelings to determine whether or not I should be held responsible if x does in fact get shot.”
It depends, is there reason to believe that you have sway and influence over the person you’re talking to? Is there reason to believe he would actually do it? If you say it to me go and kill X then I’m obviously not going to. If I’m unstable, I hate person X and you give me a gun, you hold sigificant sway over me, and you command me to do it certainly I’d say that you’re at least partially responsible for his death.
As for the interpretation aspect of the equation, all law is merely a matter of interpretation.
It’s not that simple. At least not in a stateless society.
I said it on a stage. During a speech.
But I don’t even know why that’s relevant. The way you put it, what matters is the fact that “they would not have died”. My point was, if that’s your litmus test, there’s a lot of guilty people out there. I mean, after all…that hurricane wouldn’t have existed if that butterfly hadn’t fluttered its wings.
Again, if you want to be that blanketed, you could just as easily say “life merely a matter of interpretation.”
“It’s not that simple. At least not in a stateless society.”
Inevitably that is what law boils down to. There is more to it, but that is at the bare bones of the matter.
“The way you put it, what matters is the fact that “they would not have died”. My point was, if that’s your litmus test, there’s a lot of guilty people out there. I mean, after all…that hurricane wouldn’t have existed if that butterfly hadn’t fluttered its wings.”
Once again, I understand what you mean but the fact is that these people couldn’t have forseen such an outcome.
“Again, if you want to be that blanketed, you could just as easily say “life merely a matter of interpretation.””
And? If you’re looking for an absolute black and white answer from me you’re not going to get it because one does not exist.
What people? And how do you presume to tell others what they could have foreseen? Again, it’s just a matter of what you think? A preacher in Florida says “all I did was burn some books.” …and you get to come back and say “you should have foreseen that those Muslims halfway around the world would storm into the UN and murder 20 people (beheading two of them). You know how crazy they are. You spend a lot of time preaching about it. Those victims ‘would not have died’ had you not burned those books. You are responsible.”
That was my whole point. You’re the one who just said “All law is a matter of interpretation”, as if that gets anyone anywhere. If you’re going to be that vague and cryptic, you might as well just say: “Life is just a matter of interpretation. Are you even alive? Is anyone? I can’t be sure. You may think I killed that man, but that’s just your interpretation.”
"What people? And how do you presume to tell others what they could have foreseen? "
Because it’s pretty straightforward to know when someone does and does not know whether or not their actions will directly result in force being used against someone else’s death. Do you think think that Hitler didn’t know that the jews would be slaughtered at his command? Do you think that a mafia boss doesn’t know that because of what he ordered to occur people will be harmed?
In a free society it’s hard to see a situation where people would lean to the point of ‘oh well he should have known’ rather than ‘we don’t know whether he could have known’ for obvious reasons. Your own reluctance and fear of the matter helps to vindicate this.
“That was my whole point. You’re the one who just said “All law is a matter of interpretation”, as if that gets anyone anywhere. If you’re going to be that vague and cryptic, you might as well just say: “Life is just a matter of interpretation. Are you even alive? Is anyone? I can’t be sure. You may think I killed that man, but that’s just your interpretation.””
You’re grasping for an answer which does not exist. Right now you’re reminding me of the statist who, when told that, say, there is no ‘just’ price for labor, continually asks what the right price is. The answer is, I don’t know, that can’t be said beforehand, that depends upon the situation just as all things do, nothing is entirely black and white. EVER. We can give general guidelines but we can’t know for sure without more details.
What about intentions? Should we not determine hitler’s intentions to determine his guilt?
Unless either his intentions are perfectly discovereable from his actions or perhaps we need only know that he purposefully/consciously did what he did
I’m not really sure intentions matter. I’m sure that some statists have the best of intentions with their programs, but we know better.
Causation, not intention, matters. Of course, if the victim decides that intention is important as well, then good for them. But for the purposes of ceteris paribus justice, causation.
Germany under Hitler was a totalitarian state. A top down heirachy coupled with the state monopoly on force with Hitler giving orders makes him culpable. He gives you an order to gas those in your camp who can no longer work. If you refuse you the SS throws you into the gas chamber. Without the order being issued people are not being gassed or lined up next to a ditch and shot in the head.
