5 ms·

You were very selective and general in your question while the OP was a tad more specific on what he meant. He isn't saying you have a moral obligation to do so

by sigzero 13y ago

You were very selective and general in your question while the OP was a tad more specific on what he meant. He isn't saying you have a moral obligation to do something about EVERYTHING you find immoral. That would be incredibly hard to work out in your day to day life. If you come across something that affects millions of people that you find morally repugnant, you start weighing whether you actively do something or walk away. Both of those are "doing something".

diminoten 13y ago
I wasn't selective, intentionally. I'm asking what argument he would supply for ever acting, not merely in certain circumstances. Why does the commenter believe there is ever a point at which a person becomes morally responsible for the acts of others?
- akiselev 13y ago
  You miss the point, it's not about being morally responsible for the acts of others. It is about the act of self sacrifice to bring to light the immorality of others. This is a "duty" only to the extent that you believe in democracy and the duty of a citizen in it. As for arguments about why you would ever act, it really depends on the person. Most people are far more pragmatic about what it constitutes for their family to be safe and happy whereas others believe (along with their families) that "It is better to die free than to live in shackles." I've noticed the latter especially among immigrants from regions with a history of totalitarian regimes. For example, the majority of Russians who immigrated here after the USSR collapsed remember all too well what it's like to live in an oppressive state. For them, they see history repeating itself and know first hand how arguments like "who cares if you've got nothing to hide" end in people disappearing in the night and neighbors ratting each other out for petty reasons. It is very alarmist but when you're born without the cultural trust for government in America, you see things very differently.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    What part of democracy requires I defend a minority? Isn't democracy by its very definition harmful to the minority? You invoke the term like it's supposed to flip a switch in my brain, but I guess I'm not being flipped. What is your actual argument? Specifically, what argument would you give to demonstrate a person who believes in a democracy has a duty to, at a loss, expose the wrongdoing of others?
    - akiselev 13y ago
      Sorry my statement was very poorly phrased. What I meant was, self sacrifice is not a duty imposed (or even encouraged) on you implicitly or explicitly in a democracy (like voting is, for example). It's only a duty if you believe it is. Yes, this is a tautology, but you seem to be asking for a specific answer to a question that inherently depends on each person and each situation. The majority-minority dynamic further complicates it (i.e., if you are in a minority of Americans who cares about what the NSA is doing, do you have a right to sabotage or expose what they are doing, despite being against the majority?). As for harmful to a minority, you're thinking of winner-take-all electoral processes. Democracy is usually meant to describe the overarching idea of self-rule with checks and balances. I can't think of a single democracy in the developed world that doesn't have a minority-friendly self correcting feature (whether or not the checks and balances are working properly is a different matter). To me it comes down to, do you "believe" in democracy or do you actually BELIEVE in democracy? The former means that you don't actually give a shit about the type of government you are ruled by until it infringes on you and yours. The latter means that to you, living in a democracy and being free (from oppression, surveillance, an over-zealous majority, etc.; whatever freedom is for you) is as important an aspect of your identity as your job or your family.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - diminoten 13y ago
        What argument would such a person who believes self sacrifice to be a duty give as a defense for such a belief? And democracy is not related to the democratic republic the US currently runs on. If someone's using democracy to refer to such representative democracy or republic, then they're misusing the term. You keep saying, "believe in democracy" which, even if you're granted the definition of democracy you keep using, doesn't explain the argument for a duty to act. If you believe it works, then you believe the system will correct for the supposed abuse of power the government is perpetrating. If you don't believe in "democracy" as you've defined it, then you have no belief that the misuse of power will be rectified. In the latter case, what argument would be given to justify a moral obligation to take action against this immorally acting government system you don't believe is effective? You seem to want to talk about the practical nature of taking action, when that is entirely irrelevant if the philosophical conclusion to be drawn is based on flawed or incomplete reasoning. First we must establish there is even a theoretical duty to act before we even talk about the practicality of doing such a thing.

by sigzero 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

I wasn't selective, intentionally. I'm asking what argument he would supply for ever acting, not merely in certain circumstances. Why does the commenter believe there is ever a point at which a person becomes morally responsible for the acts of others?

akiselev 13y ago
You miss the point, it's not about being morally responsible for the acts of others. It is about the act of self sacrifice to bring to light the immorality of others. This is a "duty" only to the extent that you believe in democracy and the duty of a citizen in it. As for arguments about why you would ever act, it really depends on the person. Most people are far more pragmatic about what it constitutes for their family to be safe and happy whereas others believe (along with their families) that "It is better to die free than to live in shackles." I've noticed the latter especially among immigrants from regions with a history of totalitarian regimes. For example, the majority of Russians who immigrated here after the USSR collapsed remember all too well what it's like to live in an oppressive state. For them, they see history repeating itself and know first hand how arguments like "who cares if you've got nothing to hide" end in people disappearing in the night and neighbors ratting each other out for petty reasons. It is very alarmist but when you're born without the cultural trust for government in America, you see things very differently.
- diminoten 13y ago
  What part of democracy requires I defend a minority? Isn't democracy by its very definition harmful to the minority? You invoke the term like it's supposed to flip a switch in my brain, but I guess I'm not being flipped. What is your actual argument? Specifically, what argument would you give to demonstrate a person who believes in a democracy has a duty to, at a loss, expose the wrongdoing of others?
  - akiselev 13y ago
    Sorry my statement was very poorly phrased. What I meant was, self sacrifice is not a duty imposed (or even encouraged) on you implicitly or explicitly in a democracy (like voting is, for example). It's only a duty if you believe it is. Yes, this is a tautology, but you seem to be asking for a specific answer to a question that inherently depends on each person and each situation. The majority-minority dynamic further complicates it (i.e., if you are in a minority of Americans who cares about what the NSA is doing, do you have a right to sabotage or expose what they are doing, despite being against the majority?). As for harmful to a minority, you're thinking of winner-take-all electoral processes. Democracy is usually meant to describe the overarching idea of self-rule with checks and balances. I can't think of a single democracy in the developed world that doesn't have a minority-friendly self correcting feature (whether or not the checks and balances are working properly is a different matter). To me it comes down to, do you "believe" in democracy or do you actually BELIEVE in democracy? The former means that you don't actually give a shit about the type of government you are ruled by until it infringes on you and yours. The latter means that to you, living in a democracy and being free (from oppression, surveillance, an over-zealous majority, etc.; whatever freedom is for you) is as important an aspect of your identity as your job or your family.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - diminoten 13y ago
      What argument would such a person who believes self sacrifice to be a duty give as a defense for such a belief? And democracy is not related to the democratic republic the US currently runs on. If someone's using democracy to refer to such representative democracy or republic, then they're misusing the term. You keep saying, "believe in democracy" which, even if you're granted the definition of democracy you keep using, doesn't explain the argument for a duty to act. If you believe it works, then you believe the system will correct for the supposed abuse of power the government is perpetrating. If you don't believe in "democracy" as you've defined it, then you have no belief that the misuse of power will be rectified. In the latter case, what argument would be given to justify a moral obligation to take action against this immorally acting government system you don't believe is effective? You seem to want to talk about the practical nature of taking action, when that is entirely irrelevant if the philosophical conclusion to be drawn is based on flawed or incomplete reasoning. First we must establish there is even a theoretical duty to act before we even talk about the practicality of doing such a thing.