I am posting now to present an interesting ethical question. Let us say that, somehow, someone participates in the “creation” of a killer. In other words, this person somehow contributes to the conditions that led this person to kill people. Now, say this person kills someone. Is the person who helped in the “creation” of the killer partially responsible?
That’s kind of vague and because it is vague I’ll have to say no, in general someone who “somehow” participates in the creation of a killer is not responsible. Was Oliver Stone somehow partially responsible for killing sprees inspired by his movie Natural Born Killers?
Marc
Allow me to attempt to narrow the realm of this discussion. I shall attempt to provide an example of the sort of thing I was considering. Let us say that a boy is mocked frequently throughout his childhood. For whatever reason, this triggers in him a homicidal tendency. This being the case, were those who mocked him in part responsible for those he then went on to kill? If it were them, would they be responsible for their own deaths?
There is a point that is sometimes argued, and I don’t necessarily agree with it but find it hard to rebut.
Right now we think that there are two causes for behavior, genetic tendencies and upbringing. Nature and nurture is the shorthand. Now, the individual is not responsible for his own genetics and he is not responsible for his own upbringing. So how can he be held responsible for his behavior?
I guess my real question would be, is all of behavior determined by genetics and upbringing, or does the individual make other, independent, neurological connections that go outside the bounds of those two determinants?
No.
What about when the causal link is a little better backed up by statistics; a significant proportion of child-abusers were themselves abused as children; we could argue that this is also genetics, but the original abusers are not always the natural parents, so I’d say that’s one area where ‘nurture’ can be said to have an effect.
Is the original abuser responsible for the later actions of the child he abuses?
Perhaps in part. Nevertheless, nooe is entirely responsible for the actions of another.
sigh
NO ONE is entirely…
If you follow that line to conclusion the state could be held responsible for everything and personal liability eroded completely. No one could be responsible for their actions - (Behavourism ideals - See BF Skinner).
Then what do you have? You are only what you inherit genetically and experience during your life. And those experiences you have are totally reliant on those surrounding you, good or bad. Everyone is to blame, and no one.
I’d like to clarify that I was merely asking the question “Is the original abuser responsible for the later actions of the child he abuses?” - not attempting to assert an answer.
karma
Just because a particular conclusion would have disasteruous social consequences if affirmed, does not make it false.
I think the interesting question is, if no one was to blame, would we change our systems of punishment and responsibility much? How would things change?
My best counter-intuitive guess would be that we would, rather than being MORE lenient, be more likely to be LESS lenient. The affirmation that no one is solely responsible for their actions would certainly lead to a destruction of the “retributive” part of punishment, but in some ways, it would actually enhance the “preventative” rationale. We would do away with “extunating circumstances” defenses entirely (since by definition, everyone would have entirely extunating circumstances), and punish harshly. Why? Punishment would then be serving an entirely preventative rather than retributive purpose: being an influence on people’s future behavior rather than determining how much at fault they are so we can exact appropriate revenge. The nature and types of crimes we would punish for would probably change considerably, but to influence people, punishment would have to be much more of a constant and well-known result for certain actions.
Not that I think such a thing would ever happen in the first place. We are all so hardwired to think subjectively/deliberatively, rather than deterministically, that it would be like the entire country trying to learn and speak a second foriegn language at once.