That’s obviously true, but it’s unfair to blame McDonald’s for the obesity epidemic. We’re all influenced to greater or lesser degrees, but are expected to use good judgement when we choose to act. There’s an assumption of free will that we as a society endorse in most cases, so I don’t understand why in other cases we make exceptions. — Pinprick

It's weird to claim that responsibility for the effects of your actions is an "exception to free will". This seems to assume the "free" in "free will" means "random", i.e. unrelated to previous events. But that's not the case.

Was Manson so extraordinary that others were unable to resist his persuasions? — Pinprick

I don't see why "inability to resist" should be the criterion. If I offer 5 million for someone's death, would-be assassins aren't "unable to resist" this offer, but it'd be ludicrous to argue I had nothing to do with the eventual death of the person.

It’s concerning to think that our legal system seems to have no issue equating speech and actions. — Pinprick

Speech literally is an action.

I wouldn't venture to say people (most of them) act of their own volition, though one could say that, given one's own volition might be to do what others are doing. But I think I'm speaking too obscurely. In your proposition, either or, yes I think you're probably right, as such things go people act of their own volition. But if they get in trouble, then they might be able to pass off the blame on someone else. However it would be a mistake to say some people aren't greatly influenced by others. However you have a fair question. Maybe the determining factor shouldn't be one or the other, but exterior things, like the grand good. I mean after all don't people that do what others do represent a kind of collective? So it's an aggregate mass in consideration, not inviduals. Are its actions good, or bad? Perhaps too great a focus on an individual is overlooking that most are, well... otherwise. :)

Great question. An exposé of an underlying inconsistency - at times, you're deemed capable of saying, "no" to external influences and at other times you're considered incapable of doing that - at the core of responsibility for one's actions, speech too, and on occasion even one's thoughts.

For my money, the inconsistency reveals a bitter truth about us viz. we're thoroughly confused on many fronts, hence the inconsistency you were so kind to bring to our attention. I suppose it all boils down how strong the external influence in question is. Charles Manson was, to my knowledge, almost a godlike figure to the people who went on to commit the crimes he was held responsible for.

Since, Manson's followers were in in thrall of him, they could be viewed as virus-infected computers - their minds hijacked as it were by Manson and running code installed on them by none other than Manson himself. In essence, Manson's disciples were following his instructions or their corollaries.

Could Manson's "family" oppose Manson? In other words, were they capable of saying, "no" to Manson's influence? I don't know. I believe all of them were 18+ years old but then Manson was a god to them.

This, intriguingly, takes us back to Athens, roughly 2000 years ago, to Euthyphro's dilemma - is an action good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? The dilemma suggests/indicates everyone has a mind of their own in a manner of speaking and won't/shouldn't act out of mere faith in god. By that token Manson shouldn't be held responsible. However, the dilemma cuts both ways since one of its horns makes it explicit that once god enters the fray, people might just be willing, even eager, to do god's bidding even if it means committing the worst of atrocities.

More than one person can bear the blame for a result, it isn't split between actors. — Echarmion

I guess you can make the case that this is true collectively. Sports would be an example of this; no one person is responsible for winning/losing, but each individual is still only responsible for their actions. The QB isn’t responsible for the wide receiver dropping the pass, for example.

Not exactly what I was getting at in the OP, but I agree. I think the act of assigning blame is really where morality starts. So I think if we’re ever going to have a consistent ethics, we need to assign blame consistently.

It's weird to claim that responsibility for the effects of your actions is an "exception to free will". — Echarmion

I’m claiming the opposite. Typically free will is assumed, but when Manson is blamed for a murder someone else committed, it implies that person did not have free will, or at least was not capable of exercising it. So in this case we make an exception, and blame Manson instead of the person who’s actions actually resulted in death.

I don't see why "inability to resist" should be the criterion. If I offer 5 million for someone's death, would-be assassins aren't "unable to resist" this offer, but it'd be ludicrous to argue I had nothing to do with the eventual death of the person. — Echarmion

I’m separating the two incidents. You would bear blame for hiring an assassin, but the assassin would be to blame for the actual murder. So, I’m fine with blaming Manson for whatever it is he actually did (which basically amounts to preaching as far as I understand it), but he isn’t a murderer.

Speech literally is an action. — Echarmion

Yeah, that’s true, but speech alone isn’t capable of forcing someone to do something, effectively eliminating their free will. It’s the difference between telling you to raise your hand, and forcibly grabbing your hand and raising it.

My assumption, and this will probably come across as a gross generalization, is that people who are “gullible” enough to consider Manson a god are probably mentally ill. And Manson can’t be held responsible for someone’s mental illness.

Actually, I think something similar to this argument is used to absolve the Beatle’s song “Heltor Skeltor” from blame for Manson’s actions. Due to Manson’s most likely mental illness he interpreted this song as a sort of prophecy about an impending race war. The song obviously was no such thing, nor was it intended to be.

This also brings up the other issue of interpretation. If someone doesn’t realize or recognize hyperbole, and then goes on to commit horrendous acts due to this misinterpretation, who’s to blame? Should the speaker have been more responsible, and chosen his words better or made it more clear it was hyperbole? Or is the actor to blame for not interpreting correctly? Or I guess a third option would be to say neither is to blame?

My assumption, and this will probably come across as a gross generalization, is that people who are “gullible” enough to consider Manson a god are probably mentally ill. And Manson can’t be held responsible for someone’s mental illness. — Pinprick

I'm fairly certain that Manson & his "family" were put through psychological tests of IQ, personality, schizphrenia, and the like. Given the court's verdict was guilty, it's safe to say they scored well on the IQ test (were not gullible) and the schizophrenia test was negative (they weren't insane). That you seem to think they were "gullible" and/or "insane" casts doubt on the validity of psychological tests, especially in borderline cases as must've been true for the Manson "family"

This also brings up the other issue of interpretation — Pinprick

Indeed, I believe there are many real life instances of misinterpretation. Someone could pass an insensitive comment such as, "Blacks are more violent than whites" and the audience might (mis)interpret that as "kill/jail Blacks" or something like that. I suppose the chances of getting the wrong idea is proportional to the rhetoric in a speech/text which makes the speaker/writer liable to some degree for the effects of faer words.

I indeed am weary of the accuracy of psychological testing, particularly IQ tests, but I won’t try to make the argument that their specific tests were inaccurate. However, given that these accuracy debates are still occurring, and that these tests were conducted roughly 40 years ago it’s likely that they weren’t as accurate as they may be today. So I think having some suspicion is warranted, but nonetheless I’m sure this testing was the best we could do at the time. At the very least I think it would be safe to say they were prone to delusional thinking, which could have had something to do with all the LSD they were taking, among other things.

I suppose the chances of getting the wrong idea is proportional to the rhetoric in a speech/text which makes the speaker/writer liable to some degree for the effects of faer words. — TheMadFool

I don’t think it can be that cut and dry. Culture has a lot to do with it too. Mark Twain used a racial slur quite often in his writings. Does that mean he was racist? That’s a rhetorical question, but it would be easy to see how a reader may come to the conclusion that he was. Especially if they’re not informed about the author or when the book was written. But it’s ridiculous to expect Mark Twain to have the foresight to know how the word “nigger” would be interpreted 100 years after the fact.

I indeed am weary of the accuracy of psychological testing, particularly IQ tests, but I won’t try to make the argument that their specific tests were inaccurate. However, given that these accuracy debates are still occurring, and that these tests were conducted roughly 40 years ago it’s likely that they weren’t as accurate as they may be today. So I think having some suspicion is warranted, but nonetheless I’m sure this testing was the best we could do at the time. At the very least I think it would be safe to say they were prone to delusional thinking, which could have had something to do with all the LSD they were taking, among other things. — Pinprick

Right! :up: I sometimes forget the 4th dimension (time) - things change, the new, allegedly better, replace the old, reportedly inferior. Perhaps this applies to us as well. Fast forward a 100 or so years, and people will probably mock/criticize us for how little we knew. Nevertheless, your comments are, like Shakespeare's plays, timeless - valid for all time as it were.

I don’t think it can be that cut and dry. Culture has a lot to do with it too. Mark Twain used a racial slur quite often in his writings. Does that mean he was racist? That’s a rhetorical question, but it would be easy to see how a reader may come to the conclusion that he was. Especially if they’re not informed about the author or when the book was written. But it’s ridiculous to expect Mark Twain to have the foresight to know how the word “nigger” would be interpreted 100 years after the fact. — Pinprick

I think the idea expressed in this paragraph has broad applicability. As I mentioned vide supra, we need to be alert to the temporal dimension, specifically the change that takes place in our knowledge - outdated theories are discarded as new, hopefully better ones, replace them - which gives us an opportunity to recontextualize old issues in a newer, more truthful, set of ideas.

I feel like the adverse reaction to my ideas is indicative of that society is to blame.

I’m claiming the opposite. Typically free will is assumed, but when Manson is blamed for a murder someone else committed, it implies that person did not have free will, or at least was not capable of exercising it. So in this case we make an exception, and blame Manson instead of the person who’s actions actually resulted in death. — Pinprick

Not really. Noone denies that you still have free will if I put a gun to your head and ask you to hand over your wallet. You can choose death, after all. But that doesn't mean me putting the gun to your head is somehow irrelevant to the question of responsibility / blame for the result.

I’m separating the two incidents. You would bear blame for hiring an assassin, but the assassin would be to blame for the actual murder. So, I’m fine with blaming Manson for whatever it is he actually did (which basically amounts to preaching as far as I understand it), but he isn’t a murderer. — Pinprick

Ok, but this is already what's happening in practice (the members of the Manson family who actually did the murdering were not acquitted). So it sounds like this is purely semantics. So one isn't a "murderer" but a "murderer hirer" or a "murderer preacher". Aside from the name, what's the difference? What's worse, hiring an assassin or being an assassin? Probably depends on the circumstances, right?

Yeah, that’s true, but speech alone isn’t capable of forcing someone to do something, effectively eliminating their free will. — Pinprick

Nothing outside of literally taking control of someone's body is technically capable of eliminating someone's free will. But someone else's free will isn't a barrier that somehow shields one from consequences.

It’s the difference between telling you to raise your hand, and forcibly grabbing your hand and raising it. — Pinprick

Yeah but what is that difference? How does it matter from a moral standpoint?

Excuses and excuses and excuses – excuses just to avoid one single insight that “I am responsible for myself. Nobody else is responsible for me; it is absolutely and utterly my responsibility. Whatsoever I am, I am my own creation.” — Anand-Haqq

We're a community. We have a shared responsibility for each other! How can you be okay with yourself if you deny responsibility for the world we're living in?

. No ... TaySan ...

. Your common word for ... responsability ... is not responsability ... You're not talking about responsability ... your're talking about respectability ... you're talking about Duty.

. In the so-called dictionary they're synonyms ... but in Life ... in existence ... not in a stupid dictionary ... they're not synonyms ... in fact ... they are diametrically opposite to each other ... as sky-earth ... as Hell-Heaven ... but paradoxically ... they may be complementary ... because the whole Life is a Paradox ...

. Duty and respectability are a social contract ... they are ugly phenonema ... they're not natural ... it's useful ... it is not an end unto itself ... Duty is mind-oriented ... goal-oriented ... responsability ... is heart-oriented ... Love-oriented ... do you understand ... Responsability means ... that ... you responde to the moment ... regardless the consequences ... you're whole in the moment ... and everything whole ... friend ... know well ... that is Holy ...

. Responsability is not something cultivated by you ... it rises through you ... through your innermost core ... it is existencialist ...

. Unless you're responsible to yourself ... unless you Love yourself ... as an unique human being ... not as a personality ... but as an individual ... you cannot and will not respect others ... respect the whole universe ... One who plays the duty role ... pretends to love others ... In fact ... he's an hypocrite ... that's the reason why he needs to be confined to stupid rules ... made by stupid people ... He does not trust in his heart ...

You're like a true poet. You have a really nice way of writing but I have no clue what you mean.

But I do understand the Ouroboros now. It's not eating itself. It's kissing its own ass :flower:

But that doesn't mean me putting the gun to your head is somehow irrelevant to the question of responsibility / blame for the result. — Echarmion

Right. That’s why putting a gun to someone’s head is illegal/blameworthy.

Aside from the name, what's the difference? — Echarmion

Being blamed for someone else’s actions vs. being blamed for your own.

But someone else's free will isn't a barrier that somehow shields one from consequences. — Echarmion

Not sure what you mean here…

Yeah but what is that difference? How does it matter from a moral standpoint? — Echarmion

Consider the tendency some have of blaming the victim. Is a woman to blame, in any way, for the actions of the rapist? Feel free to imagine whatever scenario you like; she was coming on to him, was dressed provocatively, etc.

If we’re going to blame someone for someone else’s actions, then we have to contend with examples like this one. If she’s not to blame, why not? I have a feeling whatever argument you use to justify not blaming her can also be used to justify not blaming Manson for murder.

Right. That’s why putting a gun to someone’s head is illegal/blameworthy. — Pinprick

And that, according to you, is unrelated to the actual intent and result? I.e. it's always the same blame, regardless of your reasons and the result?

Consider the tendency some have of blaming the victim. Is a woman to blame, in any way, for the actions of the rapist? Feel free to imagine whatever scenario you like; she was coming on to him, was dressed provocatively, etc.

If we’re going to blame someone for someone else’s actions, then we have to contend with examples like this one. If she’s not to blame, why not? I have a feeling whatever argument you use to justify not blaming her can also be used to justify not blaming Manson for murder. — Pinprick

Well one obvious reason here is that it's the victim we're talking about. We're not blaming the victim because they weren't the ones that decided to break the rules. It's important here to distinguish between intention to cause harm and negligence. The victim does not intend to be victimized, so the charge can only be one of neglecting precautions. Every society has to define it's own standard of acceptable precautions. Those cannot be absolute, lest everyone be paralyzed. So we make decisions about what we should and shouldn't demand of people, and many societies have decided that asking women to make precautions such as dressing in specific ways isn't acceptable (besides the actual causal connection being suspect in the first place).

Intentional behaviour is under much stricter rules. If you intend to cause a certain result, in generally does not matter how many intervening decisions there are, unless the connection is so tenous as to be effectively random.

Noone but yourself. At the end you are the last person who pulls the trigger of your actions and decisions. Blaming others is just finding excuses for youself to avoid your own personal responsibility. And worst thing is that you lose precious time to push yourself to grow bigger

And that, according to you, is unrelated to the actual intent and result? I.e. it's always the same blame, regardless of your reasons and the result? — Echarmion

If I understand you correctly, no. I think intent and result both matter. For example, someone that is starving to death and steals bread should be treated differently than a CEO that funnels millions of dollars illegally into an offshore account. The former act is understandable, maybe even justifiable, whereas the latter is not.

Well one obvious reason here is that it's the victim we're talking about. — Echarmion

But can’t the Manson family be viewed as victims of Manson’s brainwashing? Isn’t that the logic used to make him culpable in the first place?

This discussion makes me think of the philosophers; for so many of them have been convicted of their ideas which, allegedly, led to corruption and slaughter.

For example, Socrates. He was convicted of corrupting the Athenian youth. Was the fact that his intention was innocent, that he was only seeking rational truth, exculpatory? That so many of his disciples—Alcibiades comes to mind—were influenced by him to corrupt politics suggests he was the origin of that corruption.

Again: is Marx responsible for Stalin? Is Machiavelli responsible for any prince’s atrocities who came after? Is Nietzsche responsible for Hitler? Is Thales accountable for revealing that Zeus does not control the heavens?...

...on the other hand it is clear that certain freedoms allowed by the legislator in society necessarily lead, by nature, to certain corruptions. The left, in America, has always viewed violent video-games as free speech—yet who can doubt that such customary exposure to virtual violence leads to actual such? Women in the west have been allowed to dress suggestively now for a long time. Who would doubt that revealing young women’s bodies in public would lead to an increase in rapes and sexually inspired murders?