Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[LockeeDeck]

I would apply what I said previously to that scenario.

Interesting, so someone who feels if they are caring out the wishes of their leader are responsible for their own actions, fair enough. However at the same time the leader is not responsible for making those wishes known.

Do leaders have no moral obligations outside of direct orders?

 

[Rajni]

Interesting, so someone who feels if they are caring out the wishes of their leader are responsible for their own actions, fair enough. However at the same time the leader is not responsible for making those wishes known.

Do leaders have no moral obligations outside of direct orders?

It depends on what wishes you’re talking about. You said that the king was just complaining about the person. What wishes are you referring to?

 

[LockeeDeck]

It depends on what wishes you’re talking about. You said that the king was just complaining about the person. What wishes are you referring to?

The quote is generally attributed as "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
The king wanted the priest gone but did not give a direct order to do anything about it.

 

[Rajni]

The quote is generally attributed as "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
The king wanted the priest gone but did not give a direct order to do anything about it.

OK, well he gave no direct order and his guys went and did something anyway. The responsibility is on them. Pretty simple.

 

[LockeeDeck]

OK, well he gave no direct order and his guys went and did something anyway. The responsibility is on them. Pretty simple.

Does this mean that leaders have no moral responsibility outside of their direct orders?

Does this include mafia bosses that only insinuate orders and consequences?

 

[Rajni]

Does this mean that leaders have no moral responsibility outside of their direct orders?

Does this include mafia bosses that only insinuate orders and consequences?

People are responsible for their own actions. Period. How this would even be a question is beyond me.

 

[public hermit]

Is a speaker responsible for the actions of someone who listened to their words and if so to what extent?

A king complains about a priest around his knights and the knights go out and kill the priest even though the king didn't directly order it. Is the king responsible for the actions of his knights?

A president tells his supporters at a rally to fight and "stop the steal" and his supporters go and storm the capital building even though the president didn't directly tell them to do that. Is the president responsible for the actions of the supporters at that rally?

A social media personality says that a certain racial group is responsible for all of societies ills and a fan goes and attacks members of that racial group. Is the social media personality responsible even though he never directly said to do that and is separated in both time and space from the fan?

All three examples you give have a common feature. The speaker has a significant public voice. In a sense, they have authority, even if only because a large number listens, e.g. a social media personality.

I think people who have that kind of voice have a culpability that doesn't entail for me. I can post some violence suggesting screed on Facebook. No one is going to act on it, and my 5 Facebook friends will just laugh. Do I have a responsibility as part of the human race to refrain from such speech. Sure. But it's not the same responsibility that entails for a president, king, or social media personality. They have a voice that can influence in ways mine cannot.

That does not relieve those who would act on such a voice from culpability. More than one person can be responsible for the same event, and in different ways.

 

[Bradskii]

OK, well he gave no direct order and his guys went and did something anyway. The responsibility is on them. Pretty simple.

You might find this amusingly relevant (warning: verbal sexual content at the very end that might offend):

 

[Rajni]

You might find this amusingly relevant (warning: verbal sexual content that might offend)

Spot on!

 

[LockeeDeck]

You might find this amusingly relevant (warning: verbal sexual content at the very end that might offend):

So if they kept with the old system the boss would be completely blameless?

 

[LockeeDeck]

People are responsible for their own actions. Period. How this would even be a question is beyond me.

People being responsible for their own actions was never in question.

The question is if someone inspires those actions if they should share some of the responsibility, after all inspiring someone is an action itself.

 

[Bradskii]

So if they kept with the old system the boss would be completely blameless?

I think not.

 

[Rajni]

People being responsible for their own actions was never in question.

The question is if someone inspires those actions if they should share some of the responsibility, after all inspiring someone is an action itself.

Inspiration is an inside job. What is inspiring to one person is not necessarily inspiring to another. Therefore, what a person does with the inspiration that they might feel is their own responsibility.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Inspiration is an inside job. What is inspiring to one person is not necessarily inspiring to another. Therefore, what a person does with the inspiration that they might feel is their own responsibility.

Does this mean Charles Manson held no responsibility for his followers and was unjustly imprisoned?

He was found guilty by way of inspiration as he didn't directly order the murders carried out by his cult members. What should have the state done instead?

 

[Rajni]

Does this mean Charles Manson held no responsibility for his followers and was unjustly imprisoned?

He was found guilty by way of inspiration as he didn't directly order the murders carried out by his cult members. What should have the state done instead?

The Beatles didn't directly order any murders either, but Manson is said to have gotten his inspiration from the Beatles' song "Helter Skelter", and applied that term to what he saw as an upcoming war between the races. So if "guilt by inspiration" is to be applied the way it was to Manson, perhaps it also should have been applied to the Beatles, since it was one of their songs that drove him. My, what a slippery-slope it becomes when we don't simply make people responsible for what they actually do. Again, no one comes with a remote.

 

[LockeeDeck]

The Beatles didn't directly order any murders either, but Manson is said to have gotten his inspiration from the Beatles' song "Helter Skelter", and applied that term to what he saw as an upcoming war between the races. So if "guilt by inspiration" is to be applied the way it was to Manson, perhaps it also should have been applied to the Beatles, since it was one of their songs that drove him.

An interesting point. No one blamed the Beatles at the time as it was never their intent to inspire a cult leader. Perhaps intent matters just as much as speech but that brings it's own problems in attributing responsibility as who is to say what a speakers intent actually is, at least most of the time.

We know from interviews that Manson did intend for his cult to start a race war through acts of violence, he just never directly ordered violence. Does that make Manson legally and morally cleared from all the actions of his followers?

My, what a slippery-slope it becomes when we don't simply make people responsible for what they actually do. Again, no one comes with a remote.

Indeed, hence the question of how far moral responsibility goes as a line must be drawn somewhere. It is likely that there have been times that people have been held responsible for speech that inspired others to violence where they shouldn't have been and that is in an injustice in it's own right.

However, you are the only one that seems to say that there is no line, that all speech is both allowable and moral regardless of outcome because individual action is the only thing that counts. I'm just wondering what the consequences of that would be in real terms. Should no one be held to account for their words under ANY circumstance?

 

[Rajni]

We know from interviews that Manson did intend for his cult to start a race war through acts of violence, he just never directly ordered violence. Does that make Manson legally and morally cleared from all the actions of his followers?

I would say yes, for the reasons already stated. His followers, on the other hand, need to have the law handed to them where needed. Whoever does the crime, does the time.

Indeed, hence the question of how far moral responsibility goes as a line must be drawn somewhere. It is likely that there have been times that people have been held responsible for speech that inspired others to violence where they shouldn't have been and that is in an injustice in it's own right.

However, you are the only one that seems to say that there is no line, that all speech is both allowable and moral regardless of outcome because individual action is the only thing that counts. I'm just wondering what the consequences of that would be in real terms. Should no one be held to account for their words under ANY circumstance?

As you just said, there have likely been times when people have been held responsible for speech that inspired others to violence where they shouldn't have been. In order to avoid that scenario, it's best to focus on those who actually committed the violence. Speech in and of itself is neutral until the listener attributes value to it. In turn, what they do in response to the value they themselves attribute to it is their own responsibility. Words have no power until the listener gives it to them; they're just sound-waves.

 

[Bradskii]

I would say yes, for the reasons already stated. His followers, on the other hand, need to have the law handed to them where needed. Whoever does the crime, does the time.

As you just said, there have likely been times when people have been held responsible for speech that inspired others to violence where they shouldn't have been. In order to avoid that scenario, it's best to focus on those who actually committed the violence. Speech in and of itself is neutral until the listener attributes value to it. In turn, what they do in response to the value they themselves attribute to it is their own responsibility. Words have no power until the listener gives it to them; they're just sound-waves.

Has anyone promoted the idea that it's either/or?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Interesting, so someone who feels if they are caring out the wishes of their leader are responsible for their own actions, fair enough. However at the same time the leader is not responsible for making those wishes known.

Do leaders have no moral obligations outside of direct orders?

A leader who's only obeyed when he gives direct and explicit orders isn't much of a leader.

"If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers." -- Sun Tzu.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An interesting point. No one blamed the Beatles at the time as it was never their intent to inspire a cult leader. Perhaps intent matters just as much as speech but that brings it's own problems in attributing responsibility as who is to say what a speakers intent actually is, at least most of the time.

Of course, Rock and Roll music is blamed for everything else from teen sex to teen suicide.

It's a common ploy to avoid personal responsibility.

The difference here is that the Manson Family were held personally responsible for their actions - holding Charlie responsible as well was to share the responsibility, not to absolve anyone of theirs.