Most talk about morality and ethics conflates at least two things: how to make decisions and who to hold accountable. Example of the former: if life is sacred, you should decide against aborting your unwanted pregnancy. Example of the latter: if murder is a violation of consent, you should hold the violator accountable.
An example of where this goes wrong is in the case of rape. To many, rape is clearly a violation of the consent of the rapee by the rapist. On the other hand, in some countries, the rapee is held accountable instead. (This is popular wisdom; I do not know if it is accurate, but it illustrates the point.) So, is it wrong to rape, or is it wrong to get raped? Or is morality relative?
What apparently goes unnoticed is that both sides agree that rape is bad, as in, undesirable. There is no insurmountable subjectivity or relativity when it comes to judging the consequences (you know, those things that you actually care about). It only gets complicated when you want to do all that crazy accountability stuff.
Is it wrong for a hurricane to destroy a city? It depends on the hurricane’s culpability (its parents may be responsible instead if it was not raised according to some arbitrary standards), its intent, some karma-inspired notion of fairness, whether the city consented to or “was asking for” the destruction, whether asserting wrongness is consistent with deeply held intuitions, and then still on who you ask.
Is the destruction of a city by a hurricane bad? Yes.
2011-09-09 at 20:38:07 |
I don’t know why you think people’s beliefs are relevant. Surely you must present facts that prove that the rapee was the one who coerced the rapist, not just assume that people’s beliefs on the topic makes the position viable.
2011-09-10 at 08:14:18 |
In the case of a man raping a woman, the man’s defense may be that the woman was flirting, or wearing sexually-provocative clothing. We probably agree that this is no justification, but in general the line between coercion and non-coercion is not very sharp. Psychological coercion is coercion too.
The point, though, is that all of this is irrelevant. If A has bad intentions and this causes him to fuck over B, then that does not necessarily mean A should be punished or intentionally disadvantaged. A’s suffering is worth just as much as B’s. Punishment may be helpful in changing A’s ways, but it may cost more (in terms of suffering) than changing B or changing both.
2011-09-10 at 08:23:31 |
“We probably agree that this is no justification, but in general the line between coercion and non-coercion is not very sharp.”
Can you give an example?
“The point, though, is that all of this is irrelevant. If A has bad intentions and this causes him to fuck over B, then that does not necessarily mean A should be punished or intentionally disadvantaged. A’s suffering is worth just as much as B’s. Punishment may be helpful in changing A’s ways, but it may cost more (in terms of suffering) than changing B or changing both.”
That’s fine, but what does this have to do with the topic of morality v accountability? I don’t see the relation here.
2011-09-12 at 20:38:17 |
Examples of arguable coercion that come to my mind have mostly to do with psychological coercion, i.e., where the person coerced is manipulated into coercing themself. Putting up a sign that says “WET” on something freshly painted almost forces people to touch it.
The topic of this post isn’t morality versus accountability, but that (as I see it) most moral theories/frameworks/whatchamacallits have high-level concepts like accountability and blame and responsibility as their fundamentals. This stuff muddies the more important issue of how to move forward.
For example, meet Charles, who just accidentally burned down a house. He asks Daisy to help him rebuild, but she says “fuck you, you’re the one who burned down this house, so rebuild it yourself” (or something along these lines). Even though both agree that burning down the house was a bad thing, and that rebuilding it is a good thing, they disagree in a stupid and trivial but common way about how to move forward.
Looking at my post again now, I realize this wasn’t too obvious. I have a feeling the previous paragraph also isn’t too successful in conveying the point, so I may have to have another shot at it in a future post.
2011-09-12 at 20:46:50 |
Yes, I don’t really understand what you’re talking about. Are you talking about how to deal with the repercussions of actions? Or something else?