[QUOTE=villa]
OK you have confused me here. What does moral responsibility mean to you if not to describe a situation where you should do something?
[/QUOTE]
Let me see if I can explain then. Let’s say A is driving drunk, and is headed towards B who is standing blissfully on the sidewalk. If A hits B, is B ‘morally responsible’ for not being aware of the developing situation? Is the victim responsible in any way for the actions of A? If yes then, well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If no, then how is that substantially different if there is a third party? Is it C’s responsibility to save B? Does that let A off the hook, even slightly for A’s actions? C is responding to the actions of A…it’s A who is creating this entire situation. Whatever C does or doesn’t do, it’s A who has the ‘moral responsibility’ for creating this entire drama, since it’s A’s actions that made it all possible. If C acts but fails to save B, it’s still A who is responsible. If C fails to act, it’s still A who is responsible, morally, for the entire situation, since it’s A’s actions that precipitated it all.
My ethical code tells me that people are responsible for their own actions, and the person who is ultimately responsible is the person who’s actions create the situation. I’d think C was a dog if I knew for sure that C stood by and did nothing. I’d think C a hero if they saved B from certain death. But in either case I’d think A responsible, since A is the one who created the situation, whether it be as in the OP with a gun or driving in a car or whatever other permutation of this scenario that we create…as long as it’s A’s choices that lead to the situation. If we chance that then it changes the equation. There are a number of scenarios where I’d probably agree that C WAS responsible, to one degree or another…but not in either the OP’s original scenario or Spiritus Mundi’s modification. YMMV, but I’ve given it my best to try and explain where I’m coming from on this.
A and B and C make it confusing, I think. Here’s a fleshed-out scenario:
Bob leaves work at 5. Netflix just sent him Die Hard, and he’s eager to get home and watch it. A few minutes after he leaves, however, he realizes he left the disk back at work, so he turns around.
There’s a crowd outside of his office when he gets back, but he doesn’t care; he wants the disk. Someone sees him going in and says, “Wait! Adam from accounting just went in with a gun, and he’s taken Carol hostage! He says he’ll kill her if anyone comes in! The police are on their way!”
Is Bob ethically bound to wait until the hostage crisis is over before going in? If he says, “Dudes, I just want my DVD,” and he goes in, and Adam shoots Carol, did Bob do anything wrong?
I have real trouble understanding an ethical system that doesn’t frown on Bob’s act. Obviously Adam was a naughty boy and all, but I don’t think Bob gets off scot-free either.
See, that’s different. In that case I’d agree that Bob gets a share of the ‘moral responsibility’ (though the lions share, as always, goes to the guy with the gun) because he is consciously acting and deliberately precipitating events. He’s not just reacting, and he’s not being coerced into action, he’s making a choice…he’s choosing to enter the building, knowing that his actions could cause the death of another.
As I said, you could tweak the details and add all sorts of things to the various scenarios to change the equation. This is one of them.
But this again is based on the assumption of a limited amount of moral responsibility to go round. There isn’t. And again, you are mistaking this for a single action. Each person is responsible for their own actions - A in the action which results in B’s death; C in the action or lack of it that could save B’s life.
I’ll take your car example. There’s a car careening down a hill towards B. C is in a position where if he says to B, at no risk to himself, “Hey, look at that car careening down the hill,” B will be able to step aside. C cannot see if there is a driver in the car or not.
Now, if there is no driver, I’d argue that C has a moral responsibility to say the words to B. It is what he should do. There isn’t a legal responsibility, and it may not be in C’s self interest - in fact C may stand to gain if B gets run over. But I think C has a moral responsibility there, and I think most people would agree with me C has a moral responsibility there.
Alternatively, if there is a driver, who happens to be drunk, or even deliberately driving at B, you would argue that moral responsibility doesn’t attach to C. Given that C cannot see if there is a driver or not, it seems utterly ridiculous to draw a distinction between the moral culpability of C in either case. Given that it seems equally specious to draw a distinction between the two identical actions based on whether C can see if there is a driver there or not.
Does your ethical code tell you to save a person’s life if you can at no risk to yourself whatsoever (ignoring all what if it is the next Hitler arguments)? If it does, then I can’t see how you can argue the position you have. If it doesn’t, then I think your moral compass is somewhat out of whack.
There’s only one difference–and let’s change that now. Instead of having someone outside the building clue Bob in to what’s going on, Adam shouts out the window, “Stay outside or I’m shooting Carol!” If we phrase it this way, I can just cut and paste a sentence from the OP, swapping in name:
Adam holds a gun on Carol and tells Bob, “If you don’t do what I say [i.e., stay out of the building], I will shoot Carol. You will then be a murderer.” Bob refuses to comply, and Adam shoots Carol. Is Bob in any way morally responsible for the murder of Carol?
The difference between this and other proposed scenarios is that Adam is a recognizable, predictable kind of crazy here, so claiming that Bob can’t possibly predict what will happen, or claiming that giving in to this one demand will precipitate others, doesn’t fly.
You are incorrect. When discussing a question of morality, “should” describes a moral obligation. Really, I can’t imagine why you would think otherwise.
A moral “first cause” argument? How far do you extend that? In any conceivable context that I may act as a moral agent other agents have precipated events before I make my choice. You seem to be arguing that if I am not the sole determinant of every variable in a situation then I cannot be considered morally accountable for my choices.
I think you are in such a hurry to assign responsibility to “A” as an indivisible unit that you blind yourself to any moral responsibility by “C” to appreciate the consequences of his own choices.
That is not what you are arguing. You are arguing that “C” has no moral responsibility for his own actions.
Ultimate responsibility is an interesting question in itself. But what you seem to be arguing is sole responsibility. There is no room in your view for “C” to bear any responsibility for his own choices simply because “A” exists in this moral context. I disagree
[QUOTE=villa]
Does your ethical code tell you to save a person’s life if you can at no risk to yourself whatsoever (ignoring all what if it is the next Hitler arguments)? If it does, then I can’t see how you can argue the position you have. If it doesn’t, then I think your moral compass is somewhat out of whack.
[/QUOTE]
Then there should be no point in continuing the discussion with me, since my moral compass is so far out of whack and defective, right? You think my moral compass is defective, and I can’t for the life of me see how anyone can set ‘moral responsibility’ on someone other than the person who is primarily responsible for the entire situation…i.e. the guy with the gun. To me, doing what he asks or not doing what he asks is irrelevant, considering the final decision to kill or not to kill rests solely on the guy with the gun. If the guy with the gun says ‘do this or I’ll shot’ or ‘don’t do that or I’ll shoot’, then the people he is telling this stuff to is reacting to him…HE is deciding, in the end, whether to shoot or not to shoot. So, the life and death decision resides, ultimately, with the guy making that decision.
Blah blah blah. I’ve said all this before. Obviously many of you (hell, all of you for all I know) disagree. You want to modify the OP to try and defray the responsibility, or share it to greater or lesser degrees. To me, ‘moral responsibility’ resides on those who’s actions are the primary cause of the situation in question. C wouldn’t make any life or death decisions if A wasn’t precipitating this situation, ultimately C isn’t making the actual decision to pull the trigger or not to pull the trigger, therefore C can’t possibly have primary ‘moral responsibility’ for what happens. C might make a bad decision, might make a cowardly decision, and in some way contribute to B’s death, but ultimately A is the one who is deciding here. C is an unwilling participant…how can an unwilling participant who doesn’t make the ultimate decisions some how be bought into some pool of moral responsibility??
Because there isn’t a pool of moral responsibility. Whether C is morally responsible for failing to save B in no way diminishes A’s moral responsibility for killing B.
If I am walking down the street and can save someone without any risk to myself, I am morally bankrupt if I don’t do it, regardless of what it is they require saving from.
[QUOTE=villa]
Because there isn’t a pool of moral responsibility. Whether C is morally responsible for failing to save B in no way diminishes A’s moral responsibility for killing B.
[/QUOTE]
We are talking responsibility here. The one responsible is solely the one who is instigating the situation. We can second guess what C should have done, and perhaps judge C for not having done something we (who are looking from the outside and weren’t there) THINK C should have done, but that in no way buys C into responsibility for the event or what transpires.
You might be morally bankrupt if you don’t save that person, but you aren’t RESPONSIBLE for that persons death. I’m not saying you shouldn’t save that person, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t look down on you if you didn’t…but the ultimate responsibility resides with the person who instigated the situation. Otherwise, why isn’t B responsible as well? Why shouldn’t B be bought into some level of responsibility for saving themselves? If you are required to save B or you somehow buy into ‘moral responsibility’, then B should also have a buy into this responsibility pool.
Responsibility isn’t a pool. If robbing a bank has a sentence of 10 years, and Adam and Bob rob the bank together, they don’t each get sentenced to 5 years. They each get 10 years. If Adam robs the bank and Bob drove him there, even though Adam has ultimate responsibility and gets sentenced to 10 years, Bob could still get 2 years for accessory. If Carole helps Adam hide the loot and gets sentenced to 3 years for accessory after the fact, that doesn’t cut 3 years off of Adam’s sentence. If a gang of 60 people work together to rob the bank, you don’t sentence them each to two months, you sentence each of them to 10 years.
That said, of course someone may have some responsibility for their own death. Bob is holding Carol hostage, and Carol says, “screw you, dude, I’m going home,” and gets shot, Carol was being an idiot. Not an idiot who deserves to get shot, but she took an action with a predictable consequence.
The difference between Carol saying Screw You and walking out, and Adam saying Screw You and walking in, is that you’ve got a right to fuck up your own life (as Carol did). You don’t have a right to fuck up someone else’s life (as Adam did).
Yes, Bob bears “ultimate”, whatever that word means here, responsibility. But more than one person can have some responsibility for a given outcome. Otherwise, police would have to play eeny meeny miny mo when trying to figure out who in a conspiracy to charge with the crime.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Responsibility isn’t a pool.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree completely. It isn’t a pool. It just seems that some are trying to make it a pool…and an expanding pool that can suck in any random bystander, even against their will and into a situation that they neither created nor can directly affect the outcome of.
Yep. But you don’t sentence the guy they forced to open the doors to the bank at gun point, nor do you sentence the guy who refused to open the door on the threat of said bank robbers shooting some other poor bystander. The guys who do the shooting get the sentence for murder, not the bystanders.
But you seem to be saying that Carol, the hostage buys into some MORAL responsibility for her own death because she refused to obey a command under the threat of harm. Was Carol wise to push the gunman? No…probably not. But is she morally RESPONSIBLE for this guy shooting her just because she didn’t obey?? I say no…she is not. Thy guy who pulled the trigger is responsible, since it was his choice to shoot or not shoot.
But in this case Adam is making a conscious decision to endanger another…he’s deliberately choosing to participate in the drama. In that case, as I said earlier, Adam DOES get a piece of the ‘moral responsibility’, though the greater share is still on the gunman who chooses to pull the trigger. Like I said, you could tweak the original scenario into pretzels, and work out ways for the person shot to get some responsibility, for the third party to get some, or for the puppy in the corner to get some.
No, it’s much easier than that. In the OP, the cops wouldn’t have to choose who to charge with murder. The guy who pulled the trigger is the one who gets charged with murder. C, who was under threat and forced to make some choice or B would be shot isn’t going to be charged with murder in any court I’ve ever seen. They may face some type of civil suit from B’s surviving relatives, or may be charged with reckless endangerment, depending on how you want to tweak the OP and throw in more convoluted events, but the guy charged with murder is really easy…it’s the guy who actually pulled the trigger (unless you want to throw in a bunch of more complex and convoluted events for that as well, in which case the police might just see who bit the tiger on the toe).
There’s not really a way for Bob to really “know” what Adam is going to do, even if Adam were to deliver his threat against Carol to Bob personally. People are complex. They lie. Adam could be bluffing, or he could intend to kill Carol regardless of what Bob does, but just wants to jerk Bob around a bit before he finishes the deed.
So, I’m hesitant to place a strong ethical binding on Bob in this case. I doubt that he would have any legal culpability either.
And, it is my understanding that, at least in common law jurisdictions, there is no general “duty to rescue”.
I find your answer really weird. You mean that if Bob walked into the office, for no stronger reason than he wanted to pick up a DVD he’d left, and Carol predictably got shot because of what he did, you’d be cool by that?
Sure, there’s no way for anyone to know what Adam will really do, but c’mon. That’s semantics. What Bob knows is that there’s a much, much greater threat to Carol if he walks in than if he doesn’t.
I’m explicitly not interested in discussing what the law says until we figure out what’s ethical. The law should follow ethics, not vice versa.
