When a very young man I was confused. I had a beautiful girlfriend and we had nearly convinced ourselves that we could "borrow" (read: steal) a horse. As it happened, we were able to get a legal opinion. It was, "Stealing a horse is stealing. And, fairly serious stealing at that!" So we did not steal a horse.

The moral of the story is that it's easy to become confused. If he's doing illegal things, then he's police business. If he's soliciting for an illegal purpose, that's bad. And if you give knowing it's for an illegal purpose, that's a variety of aiding and abetting. It's all wrong and all illegal.

But your question is one of moral rather than legal responsibility. I think you already have your answer but that you want it to be similar to a legal judgment, somehow enforceable, if only in a concentrated weight of public judgment - or worse!

Here's what you can do: if it's illegal, call a cop. It it's not illegal but seems to you a civil transgression (and I think to be actionable it would have to be against you), then see a lawyer. If it's neither a crime nor actionable civilly; that is, if your community does not recognize it as either, then it's in the category of a personal problem - your personal problem. This just a classification guide. The upside is that if it comes to your attention and you're not a whacko, then maybe it is illegal and you can cal a cop.

The point is that law provides for enforceable remedies, morality doesn't. It's tough to get confused over the two.

Now, my question is: if someone subscribes to any of these stunt channels on youtube, are subscribers responsible for their illegal activities? Legally I have no idea. But ethically, maybe. — orcestra

No, of course not. No one is being forced to do stunts. It's their choice to do them.

No, of course not. No one is being forced to do stunts. It's their choice to do them. — Terrapin Station

The question was about illegal activities. Care to reconsider?

The stunts being the illegal activities.

The stunts being the illegal activities. — Terrapin Station

Let's for the moment set aside any and all legal considerations. According to you, the illegal - whatever it is - is in no way the responsibility of the subscriber.

if someone subscribes to any of these stunt channels on youtube, are subscribers responsible for their illegal activities?
— orcestra
No, of course not. No one is being forced to do stunts. It's their choice to do them. — Terrapin Station

Someone proposes as a "stunt' that for ten dollars in hand, they will shoot Terrapin Station - I know, crummy example, but it's existence I'm after, here, not quantity or degree. And I think, ten dollars is not a lot of money, and contribute. Resulting in a wounded Terrapin. Now according to you, you have no complaint against me. Yes?

Correct. I have no complaint against you. The responsibility is with the person who chose to shoot me. My answer here should already be clear from what I wrote above.

Correct. I have no complaint against you. The responsibility is with the person who chose to shoot me. My answer here should already be clear from what I wrote above. — Terrapin Station

Inferred, now explicit. Would you say anyone else could have a complaint: Or no one?

I suppose that, legal considerations aside, we ought to define "responsibility." Absent the possibility of consequences it must seem that any notion of responsibility is ultimately just quaint and ineffectual, in that we both can only hope people will "feel" responsible. To avoid this futility, I define responsibility as providing grounds for enforcing consequences, whether criminal or civil - but not the consequences themselves.

Please permit me then to recast the question: in the above scenario, dumb as it is, do you hold me immune from action, there being no grounds for action in that I am not responsible?

My own view cannot be a surprise. If B offers himself for hire for illegal purposes, and A engages him for those purposes, that at least is the crime of conspiracy. And if the crime is committed, then A might well find himself charged along with B. I think this is the way it is and the way it should be. But you appear to hold a different view. Have I misunderstood?

My own view cannot be a surprise. If B offers himself for hire for illegal purposes, and A engages him for those purposes, that at least is the crime of conspiracy. And if the crime is committed, then A might well find himself charged along with B. I think this is the way it is and the way it should be. But you appear to hold a different view. Have I misunderstood? — tim wood

Right, my view is different than this. I'd have no crime of conspiracy if I were king.

Inferred, now explicit. Would you say anyone else could have a complaint: Or no one? — tim wood

I'm not sure what you're asking there. It seems basically you're asking if I agree that we should have conspiracy crimes. If so, see above.

I suppose that, legal considerations aside, we ought to define "responsibility." — tim wood

For what we've been talking about, what matters to me is whether someone is able (that is, whether they're physically able) to make a choice or not. If they are, they're responsible for the choices they make, and no one prior to that, with whatever influence on them, is responsible for the choice someone makes. As long as it's physically possible to make a different choice, only the person making the choice to perform action x is responsible for action x.

Clear enough. In your kingdom, King Terrapin, enforcement would be against perpetrators, and presumably would be harsh enough to discourage any and all from accepting employment for an illegal purpose, the employer/contractor being immune. Interesting, but the concept of choice becomes critical. The question arises as to what the limits and boundaries are on choice. I'm not asking, just suggesting that if Whitey Bulger, or some other gangster or psychopath asked you to do him a favour, you might neither feel nor think you had a choice.

Actually the example mentioned by some people here isn't that facetious or hypothetical. The video of "Russian Roulette stunt - Derren Brown". is still on youtube. He is a British mind control stunt guy. On BBC live TV he got a guy to put a bullet in a gun with 6 chambers. Derren shot himself with the chambers that he sensed had no bullet. Before hand he says to the guy "you are not morally or legally responsible if I ^&&^ this up". Now, I am not sure if I agree with Darren on that. Is that different from how Brandon Lee died when a gun was meant to be empty in a stunt but it was by mistake loaded?

In many countries there is a legal principle known as "aiding and abetting", which holds those who assist in a crime as accountable.

So the driver of the getaway car is not guilty of robbing the bank, even though the driver was going to get a share of the loot?

So the driver of the getaway car is not guilty of robbing the bank, even though the driver was going to get a share of the loot? — Metaphysician Undercover

Right.