Re: Lethality of events

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> The problem with personal twisted fantasies is that reinforcement and
>> encouragement can not only strengthen them but make them more twisted.

> Agreed, and as I said, it's not something that I'd recommend doing,
> but not on moral grounds.

On what grounds, then?

> I can certainly agree with that, I just don't see blaming the symptoms
> to be useful.

I think that identifying all of the factors is generally useful.

> Absolutely, there's just far too many examples from history to think
> otherwise.  The problem is you can't just allow whoever or whatever
> leads someone astray to remove the moral responsibility from those
> being led.

I don't think it removes the moral responsibility, but part of that 
responsibility is to avoid being led into temptation in the first place.

> It's like saying Hitler made the guards at the concentration camps to
> do the terrible things he did, so they're not morally responsible.

I think there are varying degrees of moral responsibility based on the 
actions and motivations of the individual.  One can minimally or 
reluctantly follow orders at the one extreme and follow them with great 
zeal and cruelty at the other extreme.  I don't think that the former is 
morally equivalent to the latter.

> While it's certainly true that they were largely "following orders",
> it's also true that they were following some terrible orders and
> should have refused.

While I know this is unpopular to say, I think it's very easy to sit in 
safety and tell people that they should have refused orders when doing so 
most certainly would have meant death or some other horrible fate. 
Exactly what do you think the Nazis would have done to people who refused 
orders?  In a more broad moral sense, demanding that people refuse cruel
orders when such a refusal will mean their death is demanding that people 
sacrifice their lives for others, a demand that we would make in almost no

other context.

Please note that I'm not claiming that it wouldn't be right, good, and 
noble to refuse such orders and that I wouldn't prefer that people refused

such orders, nor am I claiming that the orders aren't wrong or evil. 
What I'm saying is that I think holding people morally responsible for not

throwing their own lives away, often not even to save the lives of others 
(because another person will surely step in and execute the order that 
they refused) doesn't seem very just to me.

> Some did, and most were punished harshly and someone else stepped in and

> followed the order anyway, but the fact that someone else would just do 
> it anyway doesn't excuse such behavior.

Why do you think someone is someone obliged to throw their life away when 
it won't even save someone else?

> I hate using Hitler and the Nazis as examples on Usenet, and must
> insist that you and other readers don't infer that I'm comparing you
> or anyone here to Hitler, Nazis or their sympathizers.

I have no problem using Nazis as an example, so long as they are used
reasonably, as I think you are doing here.

> I think we've got a bit more common ground than it would first have
> appeared.  I just don't think you necessarily need to enjoy being a
> vicious baby-eating rapist in order to enjoy playing one.

This leads us back to considering how a person might enjoy playing a 
baby-eating rapist, a point you don't seem to want to discuss in any 
detail.

John Morrow