Is rhetoric and propaganda equal or worse than physical violence?

[fractional slacker]

This issue/question has bothered me for years.

Is the person who perfomrs murder for money, passion, patriotism or whatever irrational thing comes up less responsible, equally responsible, or more responsible than the person who ordered the hit? Is talking about or lobbying for murder as bad as actually doing murder?

 

The Manson murders are a good example.If you believe Charles Manson was equally or more responsible for the "Manson murders," would you have have any objection to the recent murder of Anwar-Al-Awaki in Yemen by a drone?

If you are not familiar with Al-Awaki, he was a publisher of a magazine. That was the crime for which he was executed by a government that claims the moral high ground in the tea-or-ism crusade.

 

3 years after they murdered Al-Awaki, they have "released"  a piece of paper with some words on it that claim murder is an okay thing to do if they feel like it. It was deemed legal and justified. It's now part of "the law."http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justice-department-found-it-lawful-to-target-anwar-al-awlaki.html?_r=0

[Infinite Limit]

Just to clarify, and correct me if I am wrong, murder is defined as ending another person's life without their consent, either by physically killing him or directly setting in motion the events that lead to his death. Therefore, it is an initiation of force, making it immoral.

 

If a man acts on his own to murder, then he is obviously the only one responsible. If a group of men work together voluntarily to murder, then they are all equally responsible because, like the man who works alone, they own themselves, and are responsible for their actions and the effects of their actions if they have not been forced to murder.

 

The same is true when one man orders another to do his dirty work. If Joe voluntarily joins a group or chooses to serve under Steve (without any coercion, especially from Steve or the group), knowing that he will likely have to attack and kill people who pose no threat to him, then Steve and Joe are equally responsible because both could have acted differently and avoided the murder. Steve could have not ordered the murder, and Joe did not have to enable it.

 

However, if Joe was forced to serve Steve (in the case of conscription for example), then Joe is in a position where no moral decision can be made if he cannot resist Steve without getting himself or those he cares about killed. Joe either kills others on Steve's behalf, or he gets killed. In such a case, Steve assumes all responsibility because he has not been coerced into murder while Joe has.

 

Propaganda or irrationality on the part of Joe, if he acts voluntarily, does not excuse his role in such a murder because, as a human, he has the capacity to reason and identify lies and, as a result, know that murder is immoral. Although Steve would be responsible for both the lies of his propaganda and the murder, Joe is also responsible for the murder because he could have avoided serving Steve by using reason.

As a side note, this argument is exactly the same for soldiers and governments. The soldier, assuming he wasn't conscripted, is just as responsible for the people he kills on behalf of the government, and no amount of "I was just following orders" refutes this because he chose to join the military knowing that it murders and coerces people for money and power.

 

This is also why there is no such thing as a good soldier or cop, even if they aren't directly involved in killing or coercing, because they are providing more support to a violent system than they have to. They can't avoid paying taxes. They can avoid enlisting.

[square4]

Is the person who perfomrs murder for money, passion, patriotism or whatever irrational thing comes up less responsible, equally responsible, or more responsible than the person who ordered the hit?

 

The act of murder is more evil than the incitement to do it, because the act inflicts the actual damage, while threatening words, although immoral, do not inflict damage themselves. Another reason is that someone might say lots of threatening things, but then, when looking his victim in the face, he can't do it, because he realizes it's evil. Those who are in a position of power, that can be more or less sure that their words will put into action, have increased responsibility.

 

However, if Joe was forced to serve Steve (in the case of conscription for example), then Joe is in a position where no moral decision can be made if he cannot resist Steve without getting himself or those he cares about killed. Joe either kills others on Steve's behalf, or he gets killed. In such a case, Steve assumes all responsibility because he has not been coerced into murder while Joe has.

 

A moral decision is always possible. In this case, the moral decision is: don't murder. If Joe kills an innocent man, he is guilty of murder, and fully responsible, also if he is threatened by Steve. And Steve is guilty of threatening people to do evil. If Joe does not kill, he is not responsible for the murders that Steve might commit. Steve is responsible for that. People are always responsible for what they do themselves. The only situation when people are not responsibly, is when they are literally insane, or have no control over their limbs, or something like that. The threats that Steve has made are a prediction that he will do evil, if another person will do good. It creates a tough situation, similar to when a famine would strike. It cannot change the morality of an action. Suppose a famine occurs which places Joe into a position where he will starve if he will not murder. Since there is no one else to blame, certainly he is fully responsible if he murders. But this situation is not very different from a person who is conscripted.

 

Innocent people have the right not to be attacked. These rights imply that is immoral to attack them. The utterance of a government official cannot change this. Responsibility cannot change based on what a third-party is saying. Suppose two countries are at war, and both sides employ conscripted soldiers. It cannot be that two people are attacking each other, and both not guilty, or both are not responsible. It is very convenient for dictators that so many people believe they are not responsible for what they do when threatened. We are not the mindless robots of dictators. We are responsible for what we do.

[Brentb]

 

Responsibility is an agreement. So you determine responsibility by looking for who agreed or agrees to be responsible for something.

 

It is irresponsible to assign responsibility to an irresponsible person, and it is immoral to assign moral responsibility to an immoral person.

 

Responsibility is not the same as fault.

 

Man B is at fault for doing a terrible thing and should be stopped from doing such things in the future. That does not mean that Man A can morally allow Man B or the actions of Man B to be responsible for Man A's actions.

 

 

This is the response I gave to an analogous hypothetical situation where Man B commits an immoral action against Man A, and consequently Man A commits some immoral actions. In your case "Man B" is government and "Man A" is the soldier.

 

You can see the full discussion at:

 

How do you determine responsibility where other people are involved?

[Infinite Limit]

A moral decision is always possible. In this case, the moral decision is: don't murder. If Joe kills an innocent man, he is guilty of murder, and fully responsible, also if he is threatened by Steve. And Steve is guilty of threatening people to do evil. If Joe does not kill, he is not responsible for the murders that Steve might commit. Steve is responsible for that. People are always responsible for what they do themselves. The only situation when people are not responsibly, is when they are literally insane, or have no control over their limbs, or something like that. The threats that Steve has made are a prediction that he will do evil, if another person will do good. It creates a tough situation, similar to when a famine would strike. It cannot change the morality of an action. Suppose a famine occurs which places Joe into a position where he will starve if he will not murder. Since there is no one else to blame, certainly he is fully responsible if he murders. But this situation is not very different from a person who is conscripted.Innocent people have the right not to be attacked. These rights imply that is immoral to attack them. The utterance of a government official cannot change this. Responsibility cannot change based on what a third-party is saying. Suppose two countries are at war, and both sides employ conscripted soldiers. It cannot be that two people are attacking each other, and both not guilty, or both are not responsible. It is very convenient for dictators that so many people believe they are not responsible for what they do when threatened. We are not the mindless robots of dictators. We are responsible for what we do.

Moral decisions are not always possible, and by making exceptions for insanity and lack of physical control of oneself, you seem to agree with this. The degree to which morality is relevant depends on what choices we can actually make and the extent to which we can avoid certain actions. A baby cannot be responsible for kicking his mother on impulse because a baby has little to no control over his actions. A baby does not have a sufficiently developed brain, does not know how to meet his needs, does not exist by choice or choose his family, and is entirely at the mercy of his parents. Likewise, because we do not consent to be taxed and cannot effectively resist or avoid being taxed, we cannot be held responsible for what the government does, even though we are forced to fund it. We can certainly attempt to resist, even violently, and we would certainly be justified. However, we would likely get ourselves killed, endanger our loved ones or friends who had nothing to do with our resistance, and potentially destroy any chance of a free society ever returning. Therefore, we are caught in a situation where a not immoral (let alone moral) decision is impossible. Either we continue to submit out of fear and fund all the crimes inherent to government, or we resist with no reasonable chance of success and get kidnapped, tortured, and/or murdered. As a result, we also break all promises and contracts we voluntarily entered into, which effectively means we stole from others, especially those who have children or other dependents. We cannot avoid supporting evil, but the people collectively referred to as government can and should.This argument is the exact same regarding a draft. Given the choice, Joe would not have fought in a war and kill others, which is why the government forcibly conscripted Joe and others to begin with. Otherwise, the draft would be unnecessary. Yes, Joe could desert the military before killing anyone, but he would likely never see his family again, be permanently in exile, and stuck in an unfamiliar culture assuming the government couldn't find him, which would be the best case scenario. No matter what Joe does, he endangers other people. But the government (or Steve) is fully responsible for this, not Joe.As Brentb pointed out, responsibility requires a voluntary agreement between at least two parties. What voluntary agreement is present here?Of course, if Joe could reasonably avoid the draft and chose not to, he would be responsible to some degree for what he does in the war.

[square4]

Likewise, because we do not consent to be taxed and cannot effectively resist or avoid being taxed, we cannot be held responsible for what the government does, even though we are forced to fund it.

 

The reason you are not responsible for what the government does with your money is because it is the government that does it, not you. It is not because of the sanctions when not sending money. Also, sending money in itself is not causing harm or violating people's rights. The agent who receives the money has the possibility and the responsibility of using it well (or better, send it back to you). On the other hand, if someone participates in war and kills others, he is himself actually inflicting harm and violating the rights of others. Big difference.

 

Therefore, we are caught in a situation where a not immoral (let alone moral) decision is impossible.

 

If a moral theory implies that it is sometimes impossible to avoid immorality, there is something wrong with the theory. If we should not do something, then it must be possible to avoid it, otherwise the rule is nonsense.

 

Suppose Joe does not participate in government evil, and he is attacked because of that, then the government agent who imprisons him is the one who is responsible for the bad effects it has on Joe and his family. To place the blame on Joe in that case would be very unfair. Also, we should not promise something that is impossible to achieve morally, and if we have done so, then such a promise would be invalid to the degree that it requires immoral action.

 

Hopefully none of us will experience it, but suppose the government would institute the draft. This is a serious issue, because participating in a war might involve committing murder. Suppose they would give the command to shoot an innocent person, would you obey...? I would definitely say: No! I hope all of you will also say: No!

[Infinite Limit]

The reason you are not responsible for what the government does with your money is because it is the government that does it, not you. It is not because of the sanctions when not sending money. Also, sending money in itself is not causing harm or violating people's rights. The agent who receives the money has the possibility and the responsibility of using it well (or better, send it back to you). On the other hand, if someone participates in war and kills others, he is himself actually inflicting harm and violating the rights of others. Big difference.

Yes, the government does that to us, so it is responsible regardless of whether we can resist. If we can't resist without irreparable damage to ourselves and loved ones, then we cannot be responsible. But in order to be honest, we must acknowledge that we are afraid to resist. If we can effectively resist or avoid taxation and choose not to, then we continue to endanger everyone around us while supporting theft and murder and can be held at least somewhat resposnible because you are knowingly providing support to criminals when you could avoid doing so. Providing monetary support to a criminal is acting as an accomplice or enabler if you can effectively avoid or resist doing so (i.e. without getting yourself killed). You can choose to be extorted yourself, but you cannot choose to help extort, steal from, or kill others as a result. Regarding the inevitable immortality, you're right. I misspoke. What I should have said is that he is forced into an amoral situation. Although I agree that the government is ultimately responsible for all of the events that follow, I still don't see how Joe could at all be responsible for people he kills because the government can and will imprison, torture, or kill him.Regarding a draft, I really don't know what I would do. My gut tells me that I would resist or leave, but I honestly don't know.