For me it’s the third parties being affected that make a difference. When you know there is potential harm for someone else and have been forewarned, it changes the moral parameters of a choice. Is it worth it? Is the need to express my freedom in this way, worth the potential consequences, to others?
Obviously, there is much more involved than just religious zealotry, in Afghanistan. There are other things that need to be addressed.
I think this is where you are jumping the shark.
I’d agree that if by some semi-predictable actions cause ‘anger’ then you are quasi-responsible for that anger, however when you cross the line between ‘anger’ (an emotional response) and ‘murder’ you lose all rights to lay blame at anybody else’s feet but the murderer.
Here is one definition of incitement to violence from a league perspective. IMO the Muslim and political leaders that used the Koran burning to incite the public are guilty of this.
here is a definition of reckless endangerment
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
Given the specifics of Jones being forewarned, I would say he’s bordering on this. Not in any way that can be prosecuted but morally and ethically.
If the question is, will we give up our freedom of speech, freedom of expression to zealots who threaten violence, the answer is a clear no. We will defend ourselves and hold those individuals accountable for their actions.
{and that’s not addressing the reality that this isn’t just about burning the Koran}
That doesn’t make it smart or morally acceptable to provoke someone for no good reason.
For whatever reason I keep thinking about DUI. The worst part of that offense is not foolishly risking myself, but risking others. That’s how I see Jones act. He foolishly selfishly, risked others, for no good reason.
I don’t see any significant difference. In both cases, you are burning a symbol that is important to a large organized group, to protest against the policies with which that group identifies.
I agree, but we aren’t going to get there if we cater to their extremists.
Regards,
Shodan
You conveniently ignore the intervening cause of deliberate criminal action by third parties. The book burning did not cause the murder. The finger pulling the trigger caused the murder. Between the book burning and the trigger finger lies a human being that deliberately chose to commit a criminal act. That human being is where responsibility for these crimes begins and ends.
I agree, actually: there’s little practical difference between the two actions, if you divorce them of their predictable consequences.
Again, I sort of agree, only backwards: their extremists and their confirmation bias eat this nonsense up. They love it, because it confirms their impressions of the West and because it helps them recruit fence-sitters. Catering to the extremists means doing this sort of nonsense.
The way we’ll get to a world in which the death-cult within Islam is marginalized is by not acting like the schmucks the death-cult insists we are. Show Muslims that we’re fundamentally decent human beings, and the death-cult will lose credibility and traction.
Kearsen, your use of the second person makes your post fairly incomprehensible–I’m not sure who “you” means throughout that post, but I think it changes referents several times. I assume that you mean something like this:
Is that what you meant?
If so, it’s really weird. You’re allowing John to get off the hook based on Bob’s actions–but only if Bob acts really bad. If Bob just acts a little bad, or not bad at all, John’s on the hook. How does that make sense?
Varlosz’s two hypotheticals (the cinderblock vs. the sold gun) are very useful, and I’d like to see folks address them. As for me, I see no ethical difference between the two. I’m responsible for the predictable outcomes of my actions whether the intermediary is a human or a cinderblock. It’s just that if it’s a human, that human also has responsibility.
Does an imam who said, “We must kill some Westerners to avenge this slight to Islam!” have any responsibility for the murders? What if he said, “Let’s go to the UN and kill the workers there, it’s not well guarded and they’ll be easy prey”? What if he was on the street with the mob, pointed at a hapless Westerner, and shouted, “GET HIM!”?
I thought we were talking about someone who never stated or implied that anybody should be killed, and did something that no reasonable person could possibly interpret as a wish to kill anyone.
Regards,
Shodan
Which is why everyone in the USA cheered the burning on, and it received plenty of media coverage, all positive.
Why did you think that? Did you read the post I was responding to, the one that said, “he finger pulling the trigger caused the murder. Between the book burning and the trigger finger lies a human being that deliberately chose to commit a criminal act. That human being is where responsibility for these crimes begins and ends.” If that’s where responsibility begins and ends, then it doesn’t matter whether the person talking was calling for violence or not, which is exactly the point I was making.
If, however, there are some conditions where responsibility doesn’t end with the person pulling the trigger, then we need to figure out what other actions besides actually pulling the trigger can make a person responsible for death.
Ludovic, I agree that the US response was overall very good to Jones. That’s why I’m not blaming, for example, the US as a whole for the deaths of the UN workers. We’re not talking about the US as a whole, though: we’re talking about Jones turning himself into a poster boy for the deathcult.
Anything can, if there are enough jerks about who will react badly to it. Flag-burning, Koran-burning, going bra-less, opposing gay marriage, being openly gay - pick the topic, you can piss someone off.
Calling for violence is a separate moral offense. The pastor in this case did not call for violence, therefore your point does not stand.
Regards,
Shodan
Back up–is it your understanding of my point that all I’m talking about is pissing someone off? You may want to reread the thread before answering.
Why is calling for violence a moral offense? I mean, I know my answer, but it’s apparently different from yours, and given what you’ve said in this thread, I’m having trouble understanding why you see it as a moral offense.
I have no need to reread the thread; I read it the first time.
We are debating how much, if any, moral responsibility Pastor Jones bears because his Koran-burning triggered some Islamo-fascist rioting. Your allegation seems to be that he is to some extent responsible for the crazies rioting.
Because violence is usually wrong, with some exceptions like self-defense, defense of an innocent third party, in pursuit of a just war, or to the degree necessary to execute legitimate magisterial authority, like a cop making an arrest.
Inciting to violence is therefore morally wrong, outside of those exceptions. And actually inciting to violence is obviously more directly foreseeable than burning a flag or a Koran.
That’s why your hypothetical about the imam calling for murder is inapplicable. Calling for murder is wrong; burning a Koran is not wrong because it does not call for murder (except in the mind of crazies).
Regards,
Shodan
They posed a legal puzzle to Abu Hanifah (an early authority on Islamic law):
There are ten guys sitting in a row. Suddenly, a venomous snake drops into the lap of the guy on one end. He quickly flips it off him, and it lands in the lap of the next guy. The snake is tossed down the whole row this way, one guy at a time. The snake bites last guy on the other end. Who is responsible for the guy’s getting snakebitten?
So Abu Hanifah says, if the guy who was bitten tosses it away immediately, the bite was the fault of the last guy in the line before him. But if he delayed for a moment before tossing it away, what happened to him was his own responsibility.
Not sure what that has to do with the pastor, the Qur’an, and the mob; just one look at the general problem of distributed guilt.
I don’t find either to be very useful as far as protest or symbolism. More like cathartic venting.
Never suggested we should in any way. Neither do we need to recklessly provoke them for no good purpose. Nobody claimed Jones is more responsible, or even close. However, IMO, he shares some of the blame for having the knowledge of the potential threat to others, and then deciding his need to make some feeble gesture was more important.
I feel similar to people who profit from feeding the fires of hatred and bigotry. They are not directly responsible, but ethically and morally, they are tied to the consequences.
I’m not ignoring anything, conveniently, or otherwise. You seem to be ignoring our own justice system and some of it’s principles that I’ve mentioned. You’re welcome to your opinion , but clearly legal minds have decided that justice demands it doesn’t begin and end there.
I see your point and agree in principle, but I question how it applies in this event.
I agree that to fight the battle we are fighting we have to try and not give ammo to these groups. Let’s try harder not to feed the fires of religious bigotry and resentment. Still, realistically we can’t expect a few nuts to not express themselves in an offensive way every now and then. I think it’s a must that we , and Muslims, reach out to Muslims and implore them and insist that they understand the principles of free speech and reasonable appropriate response to an offense.
We blame Jones for his role , and reckless choice, and still blame those who manipulated the event into riots. We encourage Americans to resist and fight religious bigotry, while also teaching others that bigotry exists in individuals , but not the whole nation.
Interesting. Not sure it applies. There’s the difference of forewarning, and an impulse vs a premeditated act.
I’m confident there is no U.S. jurisdiction where Jones could be lawfully convicted of these murders. I am equally confident that he cannot be held civilly liable for these murders. I double dog dare you to produce a cite to controlling legal authority in the Federal or State Courts to back your outlandish claim as applied to the facts of this case.
The incitement theory fails because it lacks the elements of immediacy, specificity…and actual incitement. The causation theory fails because of the intervening criminal act of a third party. Jones was not part of any conspiracy. Jones has no known connection to the shooters or the victims. Jones is not responsible for these murders.
No. My position is that the act of publicly burning somebody else’s sacred book is the troll. It is intended and expected to be supremely provocative, to carry no effective message content beyond FUCK YOU!!
If Jones had made a considered criticism of Islam–as van Gogh did, I think–that would be entirely different. Destruction of a Qur’an wouldn’t have been part of that.
I don’t believe anybody need be cowed into silence. I welcome vigorous debate on all subjects. I uphold the principle of free speech for all, especially those I disagree with (though I don’t necessarily promise to listen to any old fool).
Nor do I agree with any suggestion to punish Jones or others like him with the force of law. His actions were wrong, not illegal.
I simply hold that his hateful gesture was not necessary to convey any actual viewpoint about Islam, that in fact it obliterated the possibility for conveying any meaningful view.
And, of course, it serves the interests of exactly the violent extremists that he ostensibly opposes.