4 ms·
You do understand that the people in the “English government” today (presumably you meant British) are not the same as in the 1950s.
by Veen 6y ago
You do understand that the people in the “English government” today (presumably you meant British) are not the same as in the 1950s.
- bawolff 6y agoInstitutions do not magically get absolved of their sins just because time has passed
- sneak 6y agoThere is an argument that they do, as you cannot hold someone guilty for actions that they did not undertake. At some point all of the criminals who did the thing in the past are dead. Institutions can't act, because they have no brains or hands: only human beings can. You can't convict an institution of a crime, nor put it in prison.
- bawolff 6y agoOur entire society is based around the notion that institutins are separate legal personalities, distinct from the people that make them up. They can take on liability, sign contracts, be sanctioned by courts, etc. Besides, we're talking moral responsibility not legal.
- sneak 6y agoYes, but that's a legal fiction. They can't act, neither can "our society" or "the government". The only entities that can take actions of any kind are human beings.
- thret 6y agoWhat do you mean? You can only hold people accountable for their own sins, not the sins of their forebearers.
- bawolff 6y agoI think you mean "should" not "can", but regardless the past british government is not a forebearer of the current british government in the typical sense of the word. It is not a separate "person" but a continuous entity Furthermore, hold responsible in this context means basically to acknowledge that the past actions were wrong, which is a pretty low bar as far as responsibility goes.