Pastor Jones & His Moral Responsibility for Death (Or: The Cleansing Effect of the Intermediary)

Great Debates
1

So in this Pit thread there’s a discussion about the violent protest, sparked by Pastor Jones’ burning of a Koran, that killed at least 12 people at a UN outpost in Afghanistan. Specifically, there’s a dispute about whether and to what degree Jones bears moral responsibility for the deaths. I’m starting this thread because I wanted to raise the issue in the context of a broader ethical idea (and also so that there will be a non-Pit thread on the topic).
To start: Of course Pastor Jones is morally responsible for these deaths.

Why? All he did was burn some paper; it was these other guys that did the killing. These deaths weren’t his goal – in fact, it was exactly this sort of behavior that Jones was protesting. So, how is this his fault?
Because we bear responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions (to the degree that they were, in fact, reasonably foreseeable). I hope no one will object that I take it as given that these deaths easily fit that criteria.

Doesn’t that absolve the actual murderers of (at least some degree of) responsibility?
No, because morality isn’t zero sum. They can be *fully *responsible for the deaths without being *solely *responsible.

**But we’re each responsible for our own actions, not for the despicable acts of others! **
Exactly, we’re each responsible for our own actions. Only superficially was Jones’ act “just” the burning of a book. The action of his own for which Pastor Jones is responsible is this: indirectly – but knowingly and recklessly – causing the deaths of innocent people.

In and of itself, it doesn’t matter that it was indirectly, nor that his action could have easily caused zero deaths – for instance, one can not absolve oneself of a murder by mailing a letter bomb with faulty wiring that may or may not detonate. (It DOES matter that these deaths were not Jones’ goal, but only to the extent that that makes this something other than “murder.”)

In any killing/death, there are going to be intermediaries between the ultimate and proximate causes. These can be as flimsy as “the knife in his chest killed him, not me” to the most complex and impenetrable chaos theory scenarios. What matters isn’t the number or type of intermediaries which buffer the consequences, but only the extent to which the intermediaries *obscure *said consequences. If I knowingly do something which puts the lives of others at risk, it makes no difference whether the intermediary is a volatile explosive in the trunk of another’s car, or a volatile crowd which is prone to murder at the kind of provocation I intend.

But that means that our decisions will be held endlessly hostage by the threats of the most unreasonable, intrusive, and violent people among us.
Not at all, because of course the possibility of an incitement to murder is never the only possible ethical consideration. At some point we have to honor our own ideals (or just get on with our own lives) and accept that doing so *may *cause *some *marginal deaths, because the alternative would be worse. You’d still be responsible for the deaths, because they must factor into your moral calculus, but your action can be honorable nonetheless because of other, greater concerns.

If you want to argue that Pastor Jones was within his (moral) rights to burn that Koran, then, you have to argue that the benefits to his action outweighed the known likely consequences.

But they clearly do not. He wasn’t doing anything noble or worthwhile; his actions are analogous to burning the flag outside of a VFW and thus getting the crap kicked out of … some innocent bystander. To put it bluntly, it’s just a dick move with all-around horrible consequences. He’s not just responsible, he’s culpable.

But even if that were all true, why do some people focus their anger on Pastor Jones instead of the people who were directly responsible for the deaths and who, surely, are guilty of the greater crime?
Because their responsibility is pedestrian and obvious, and therefore uninteresting. Because no one disputes their responsibility, and so nothing more is required than to acknowledge it in passing. Because many people don’t recognize Jones’ culpability, and ought to be corrected. Finally, because Jones is one of us, and, to be honest, though I know I shouldn’t, I therefore expect more out of him.

2

The ones responsible for the murders are the imams who incited the violence of the mob. They should be arrested and after trial, shot by the American authorities.

3

And, just as what happens with the killings of abortion doctors here is the US, the pastor and people like him will simply move on to the next batch of useful idiots.

4

If a troublemaker purposely causes trouble, is he not in fact responsible for the trouble he makes? Terry Jones knew such an action would lead to violence. He was warned by every possible source of the danger. He did it anyway.

He is responsible. The imams? They are responsible too. Those who attacked the UN? They are responsible too.

5

I am completely opposed to your view on this subject. If a terrorist threatens to murder innocent people if someone on the other side of the planet has the audacity to destroy a single copy of a work of fiction, I say the terrorist and only the terrorist is at fault. People like yourself are only encouraging such abhorrent behavior, by adding your voice to their own in trying to achieve their goals.

6

Was Theo Van Gogh responsible? Is Salmon Rushdie?

No. And no. Barbarism and the people who practice it are responsible. No one else. Just like with Jones.

7

Apart from the fact that only the Afghani courts can try capital offences — it being a puppet government has no bearing on local law, since the occupation forces have not set up direct rule — and whilst they appear to have no objection to applying the death penalty, it is usual not to announce the sentence before the trial.
And, of course, it doesn’t matter what they, such imams, ‘incited’ or said: responsibilty for action rests upon the actor.

8

No, it’s your attitude that encourages it by demanding that we pretend the instigators aren’t at fault. And you are demanding that we go along with the Pastor’s goals of promoting violence for religious purposes.

9

Huh? Are you saying that burning books is an act of violence?

10

It’s the Muslims’ fault all the way. They threatened violence if the Koran were burned, knowing some goofball would do it, and then they proceeded to kill people, hoping the usual set of useful idiots would blame it on him and not them. As many of them have said, they love death more than we love life.

11

While I don’t endorse Pastor Jones’ actions-when do we draw the line. If a man writes a book denouncing the KKK and gets murdered for that-is he responsible? If a man is a capitalist and gets sent to the gulag by communist-is he responsible?

12

I’ve saying it was deliberately intended to spark violence. It was just another example of something the Right loves; whip up violence, then deny all personal responsibility, then go right back to whipping up more violence.

13

In the first place, obviously not because they were endangering themselves, not others.

But even if they had endangered others, no, because it’s important to our culture and our lives that we do the sorts of things they were doing. It’s not important that we burn the Koran out of spite.

14

Don’t you see? Doing things insane people don’t like makes you responsible for their batshit crazy reaction. Gay people who are murdered by homophobes? Had it coming. Theo van Gogh? Practically committed suicide. :rolleyes:

15

I think the intent was the hope that it didn’t result in violence. Thus pushing back the nonsense similar to if you draw a cartoon of Muhammad we’re going to kill people.

16

Yeah, burning the Koran was really a provocation. Maybe he should have just drawn some cartoons…uh, wait a minute.

17

That’s highly speculative and (IMO) highly unlikely. It seems much more likely that, like many here, he simply felt that any resultant murders could not be his fault, and thus he had no responsibility to try to avoid them.

18

It is important that we can burn a Quran out of spite if we like. We are a free people. We will not be told that we may not say what we wish to say, and we will not bow to Sacred Cow at gunpoint.

19

The First Amendment in this country says that the federal government can’t make it illegal to say or express any viewpoint. Neither the First Amendment nor anything else could possibly make it morally right to express a particular viewpoint. If a person goes around deliberately saying things that are inflammatory, that person shares responsibility when the anger of others is inflamed.

That said, I’m a little bit puzzled why so much anger gets directed at Jones for this incident. If we want to get angry at those whose actions have made Muslims angry, George W. Bush would seem to be a much more logical target.

20

Would it be okay to burn the Qur’an for non-religious reasons? Say if I wanted to demonstrate that I live in a society where we are free to criticize and denounce even things others find sacred. Would it be okay if I started a bonfire and started throwing in holy texts from a variety of religions to demonstrate that none are immune?

I admit to having mixed feelings about this. I don’t really like it when people are assholes just for the sake of being an asshole. On the other hand I would like to send a message to certain segments of the Muslim population who gets upset about this kind of thing. We satire and insult Judaism, Christianity, various Pagans, Hindus, Buddhist, etc., etc. and one way or the other you’re just going to have to get used it. We’re not going to stop doing it just because it offends you.