Moral, I prefer the term ethic, is one thing, while judicial issues are something different.
Maybe arguing this case is getting easier if you tell these two apart.
Topic: Moral Culpability for Actions (Read 5695 times)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/judge-will-decide-if-charges-against-9-year-old-in-school-shooting-will-proceed/2012/02/24/gIQA2oZHXR_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Who would have guessed a real world example would pop along so soon?
In this case, I would not say the boy is morally culpable. What child could resist a gun that is left out in their play area?
Who would have guessed a real world example would pop along so soon?
In this case, I would not say the boy is morally culpable. What child could resist a gun that is left out in their play area?
Morality is not objectively definable. These arguments are so pointless. You guys are pretty much throwing opinions at each other.
Some might stick and change the world.
...snip...
Since this is a minimal case (a situation where the lightest level of culpability, however slight, can be reasonably assigned,) it can be used to establish a baseline.
By determining whether a moral responsibility is there or not, we can then establish a valid chain of logical reasoning for other situations, particularly extremely similar ones.
If the age is enough of a concern that you don't consider the child capable of moral responsibility, raise the age a few years and you can still establish your baseline.
Would your answer change if the children were 9?
Since this is a minimal case (a situation where the lightest level of culpability, however slight, can be reasonably assigned,) it can be used to establish a baseline.
By determining whether a moral responsibility is there or not, we can then establish a valid chain of logical reasoning for other situations, particularly extremely similar ones.
If the age is enough of a concern that you don't consider the child capable of moral responsibility, raise the age a few years and you can still establish your baseline.
Would your answer change if the children were 9?
It would change my answer if the age were taken out and we assumed all the actors were adults capable of moral responsibility.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.
It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
I'm firmly in the "No" camp. The words "prank" "moral responsible" and "6 year old" are a poor combination to me.
Well, I admit, part of my intent was to create such an odd combination. But not one so convoluted as to defy moral analysis, if any moral aspect exists, despite the oddness.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your belief seems, moreso than simply "No culpability exists," to be "Any such 'culpability' in this case is too trivial to be worth dealing with."
That's a sensible enough take, but it's not quite a denial that moral analysis of the situation is feasible. And if it's feasible to analyze this scenario, then the conclusion should speak volumes as to similar situations.
Sorry I am lost. The key fact here is that the child is 6 years old. She is not old enough to decide whether or not its safe to cross a busy street. If you allowed her out alone and she were killed by a truck, no-one would hesitate to blame you.
What do we gain by trying to impute moral responsibility to such a being?
Since this is a minimal case (a situation where the lightest level of culpability, however slight, can be reasonably assigned,) it can be used to establish a baseline.
By determining whether a moral responsibility is there or not, we can then establish a valid chain of logical reasoning for other situations, particularly extremely similar ones.
If the age is enough of a concern that you don't consider the child capable of moral responsibility, raise the age a few years and you can still establish your baseline.
Would your answer change if the children were 9?
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.
It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
I'm firmly in the "No" camp. The words "prank" "moral responsible" and "6 year old" are a poor combination to me.
Well, I admit, part of my intent was to create such an odd combination. But not one so convoluted as to defy moral analysis, if any moral aspect exists, despite the oddness.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your belief seems, moreso than simply "No culpability exists," to be "Any such 'culpability' in this case is too trivial to be worth dealing with."
That's a sensible enough take, but it's not quite a denial that moral analysis of the situation is feasible. And if it's feasible to analyze this scenario, then the conclusion should speak volumes as to similar situations.
Sorry I am lost. The key fact here is that the child is 6 years old. She is not old enough to decide whether or not its safe to cross a busy street. If you allowed her out alone and she were killed by a truck, no-one would hesitate to blame you.
What do we gain by trying to impute moral responsibility to such a being?
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.
It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
I'm firmly in the "No" camp. The words "prank" "moral responsible" and "6 year old" are a poor combination to me.
Well, I admit, part of my intent was to create such an odd combination. But not one so convoluted as to defy moral analysis, if any moral aspect exists, despite the oddness.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your belief seems, moreso than simply "No culpability exists," to be "Any such 'culpability' in this case is too trivial to be worth dealing with."
That's a sensible enough take, but it's not quite a denial that moral analysis of the situation is feasible. And if it's feasible to analyze this scenario, then the conclusion should speak volumes as to similar situations.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.
It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
I'm firmly in the "No" camp. The words "prank" "moral responsible" and "6 year old" are a poor combination to me.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.
It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
Who cares? Kids play and get a little hurt. If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
How about I give the girl who skinned her knee twenty bucks and call it a day?
Why would you, if there's no moral culpability? Because others want you to?
No offense, but that seems a little out of character.
Suggesting that money solves all problems? Stressing that people who have problems can all be bought off if you're rich? Insinuating that poor people are worth less? It's pretty much perfectly in-character for Atlas.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
How about I give the girl who skinned her knee twenty bucks and call it a day?
Why would you, if there's no moral culpability? Because others want you to?
No offense, but that seems a little out of character.
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
How about I give the girl who skinned her knee twenty bucks and call it a day?
To those who voted "No," two further questions:
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created by the child?
2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result of the mini-stampede?
A much simpler scenario might clear things up.
Let's suppose I have a gun in my hand and I'm demonstrating it to my neighbor with whom I have a friendly relationship. Someone comes up from behind me and produces a loud percussive bang. In response and without provocation, I reflexively contract my muscles due to the unexpected startling noise. The gun discharges a bullet instantly killing my friend.
Who's at fault, and for what?
Does it matter if anybody was laughing afterwards? What if there was no remorse by the noise maker? What if I said my friend deserved what he got? What if I said I was planning on shooting him anyway? Should the aforementioned change the punishment, if any?
Let's suppose I have a gun in my hand and I'm demonstrating it to my neighbor with whom I have a friendly relationship. Someone comes up from behind me and produces a loud percussive bang. In response and without provocation, I reflexively contract my muscles due to the unexpected startling noise. The gun discharges a bullet instantly killing my friend.
Who's at fault, and for what?
Does it matter if anybody was laughing afterwards? What if there was no remorse by the noise maker? What if I said my friend deserved what he got? What if I said I was planning on shooting him anyway? Should the aforementioned change the punishment, if any?
While the scenario might arguably be simpler, the questions and implications seem to just make the point of the initial question more obscure. That's why I fashioned the initial scenario as I did, and removed the heavy moral weight of culpability for a death from the equation: to quickly get at the root issue.
Asking if someone is at all morally culpable for some specific incident--particularly the one given--shouldn't be that hard to discern on it's on, should it?
Would have responded last night had the forum not been down.
Those arguing that this is pointless because there is no such thing as morality (or there is no correct answer to this question, etc.) might as well bow out of the thread. Culpability implies an element of morality in this case; if you believe that that element doesn't exist, then there's not much for you to discuss regarding culpability.
Those arguing that this is pointless because there is no such thing as morality (or there is no correct answer to this question, etc.) might as well bow out of the thread. Culpability implies an element of morality in this case; if you believe that that element doesn't exist, then there's not much for you to discuss regarding culpability.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Everyone is morally responsible for what they claim is the truth. Because of the implied danger, the others can not be expected to each evaluate the situation immediately, but should believe that the one person is doing their moral duty.
The boy who cried wolf was responsible.
The boy who cried wolf was responsible.
And so is that goddamn wolf, always running away right when the village comes running to see, such tomfoolery is downright reprehensible!
Everyone is morally responsible for what they claim is the truth. Because of the implied danger, the others can not be expected to each evaluate the situation immediately, but should believe that the one person is doing their moral duty.
The boy who cried wolf was responsible.
The boy who cried wolf was responsible.
Morality is not objectively definable. These arguments are so pointless. You guys are pretty much throwing opinions at each other.
Humans call this communication. Absorb.
Good man
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Morality is not objectively definable. These arguments are so pointless. You guys are pretty much throwing opinions at each other.
Humans call this communication. Absorb.
Jump to: