5 ms·

> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holoca

by MiroF 6y ago

> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.

Stupulous 6y ago
The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a national newspaper calling for a Holocaust and Germany had done it on that basis, the whole of the blame would fall on Germany, who took the action, and not Hitler, who wrote an editorial.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > They cruelly punished disobedience. And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part. If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine. I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. No you're not, you're using violence. The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. If there was no expectation on the part of the recipient of any negative consequences from not following your order, the order itself wouldn't cause them to do it and there would be no harm. Compare the scenario where you threaten to kill someone if they don't kill someone else while enacting a play. The threat of violence isn't really there, even though the words are identical. Clearly the words aren't the source of the crime.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        > The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible? It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces.
        unishark 6y ago
        This has gone in a funny direction. Telling someone to commit murder, with the knowledge that they will carry out this act, legally fulfills the requirements of mens rea and actus reus for the crime of murder. It isn't a speech crime per se. We don't need a new law regulating anyone's speech to punish people in these events. Convicting someone for "inciting violence" should require the same standards as any other case supposedly tying someone to a murder. For one thing you need an actual victim and make the case they caused it beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets messy (law always does) but I think that's because many people argue in bad faith, really trying to twist definitions to punish people for opinions they disapprove of.

by MiroF 6y ago

Stupulous 6y ago

The leaders who ordered the Holocaust took substantive action to ensure that their orders would be followed. They took positions of power, which meant their orders existed in a social contract that converted them to actions. They cruelly punished disobedience. And even under those circumstances, we don't absolve the people who actually did the work from blame. If private citizen Hitler had just put an op-ed in a national newspaper calling for a Holocaust and Germany had done it on that basis, the whole of the blame would fall on Germany, who took the action, and not Hitler, who wrote an editorial.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> They cruelly punished disobedience. And this is really where the "but you I just told him to kill that man, I didn't pull the trigger" argument falls apart. Because it's not the telling them which is inducing them to do it, it's that doing it is the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves. And it's the payment, or the expected retaliation, which makes the crime. Not the speech.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > the only way for the trigger man to get paid or not get fired or killed themselves That's not necessarily even true of many killings by order, nor is it the morally relevant part. If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. Your claim is that if the person I threaten kills the other person, I am not morally culpable because I didn't actually engage in the retaliation I threatened and the threatening was just speech. Absolutely asinine. I have better things to do than argue with libertarians all day, but honestly, all of these objections have been incredibly weak - it's as if you're taking the hardest possible route to defend freedom of speech.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > If I tell you to kill someone and tell you I will kill you if you don't follow through, then I am still only using words. No you're not, you're using violence. The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. If there was no expectation on the part of the recipient of any negative consequences from not following your order, the order itself wouldn't cause them to do it and there would be no harm. Compare the scenario where you threaten to kill someone if they don't kill someone else while enacting a play. The threat of violence isn't really there, even though the words are identical. Clearly the words aren't the source of the crime.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      > The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible? It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces.
      - unishark 6y ago
        This has gone in a funny direction. Telling someone to commit murder, with the knowledge that they will carry out this act, legally fulfills the requirements of mens rea and actus reus for the crime of murder. It isn't a speech crime per se. We don't need a new law regulating anyone's speech to punish people in these events. Convicting someone for "inciting violence" should require the same standards as any other case supposedly tying someone to a murder. For one thing you need an actual victim and make the case they caused it beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets messy (law always does) but I think that's because many people argue in bad faith, really trying to twist definitions to punish people for opinions they disapprove of.