Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[Bradskii]

Does a leader have any obligation to speak out if their followers are doing destructive things?

What do you say if your kids are running riot? What do you say if the people whom you manage are picking on a member of staff? What do you do if you are president and your followers break into the democratic centre of your government?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Legitimacy does not determine accountability.

We agree the Mob Boss has no "LEGITIMATE" authority, and we agree that whatever he orders his minions to do will almost certainly be illegal and immoral... but he is still responsible.

No, he is tangentially responsible as a conspirator IF there is duress (which there very likely is, in the mob). The one who committed the action is responsible.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Except that his own legal authority had ordered against it. But his legal authority also permitted him to ignore their own orders. At I said repeatedly: Practical legality within the jurisdiction of their authority. Clearly that captain did have the practical right to disobey those orders, being confident that his disobedience would not be punished by his superiors.



But again, those police officers were confident that their actions would not be punished by their superiors. Practical legality within the jurisdiction of their authority.



People often talk about "rights" as though they were natural law. They are not.

Rights are merely privileges protected by the powerful.

Well, rights ARE natural law, actually. Our Creator has endowed us with these rights, not the Government, as even the Declaration states.

Unfortunately, we have descended to a state where we think the government allows them as privileges and live as such. That's wrong.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Does a leader have any obligation to speak out if their followers are doing destructive things?

Of course. That is part of being a leader. That does not mean that obedience will necessarily follow though, unfortunately.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, he is tangentially responsible as a conspirator IF there is duress (which there very likely is, in the mob). The one who committed the action is responsible.

Responsibility is not a finite resource -- there's plenty to go around. And there is always an element of duress in a command structure: The minions do as they're told because there are (explicit or implied) penalties for noncompliance.

The whole point of any authoritarian command structure is to avoid personal responsibility by abdicating it to an authority figure, but of course this doesn't work because as I said, responsibility isn't finite -- if we agree that the mobster is responsible for his actions, the boss who orders those actions can be equally morally responsible.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Responsibility is not a finite resource -- there's plenty to go around. And there is always an element of duress in a command structure: The minions do as they're told because there are (explicit or implied) penalties for noncompliance.

The whole point of any authoritarian command structure is to avoid personal responsibility by abdicating it to an authority figure, but of course this doesn't work because as I said, responsibility isn't finite -- if we agree that the mobster is responsible for his actions, the boss who orders those actions can be equally morally responsible.

He is not equally responsible - unless there is duress. He is responsible as a conspirator.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, rights ARE natural law, actually. Our Creator has endowed us with these rights, not the Government, as even the Declaration states.

I don't care what the Declaration states. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, wasn't even a Christian--his "creator" could have been anything.

Point me to where the bible states that human beings have "rights."

 

[RDKirk]

He is not equally responsible - unless there is duress. He is responsible as a conspirator.

US state laws make all the conspirators equally responsible.

 

[RDKirk]

No, he is tangentially responsible as a conspirator IF there is duress (which there very likely is, in the mob). The one who committed the action is responsible.

Duress in organized crime is from boss down to operator.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He is not equally responsible - unless there is duress.

And there is always duress.

He is responsible as a conspirator.

He is responsible -- thank you.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Responsibility is not a finite resource -- there's plenty to go around. And there is always an element of duress in a command structure: The minions do as they're told because there are (explicit or implied) penalties for noncompliance.

The whole point of any authoritarian command structure is to avoid personal responsibility by abdicating it to an authority figure, but of course this doesn't work because as I said, responsibility isn't finite -- if we agree that the mobster is responsible for his actions, the boss who orders those actions can be equally morally responsible.

Now you have moved to morally responsible. Legally may be a different matter, depending on facts.

Each man is still responsible for what he does. You don't get to abdicate responsibility by saying, "That guy told me I had to do it" (whether true or not).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't care what the Declaration states. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, wasn't even a Christian--his "creator" could have been anything.

Point me to where the bible states that human beings have "rights."

Throughout. Where do you want to start? Man is made in the Image of God and has authority over all creation. While man stumbled and lost it for awhile, there was still the Law, which dictated the rights and responsibilities of humans to each other. Jesus restored the authority to man, first the apostles, then the 70, and then via the Holy Spirit to "those who are far off".

All existing rights arise out of man's inherent value as made in the image of God.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Now you have moved to morally responsible. Legally may be a different matter, depending on facts.

Each man is still responsible for what he does. You don't get to abdicate responsibility by saying, "That guy told me I had to do it" (whether true or not).

Sure, that type of matter was debated in the Nuremberg trials and collectively we found that "just following orders" is not a good defense. The US military has protocol saying you should not follow an illegal order, the reality on the ground might not allow for that but in theory at least that's what we stand for.

But none of that is in question here, what's in question is if leaders, be they actual or spiritual, are responsible for the things they say that their followers absorb and act on and what counts as an order and to who.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now you have moved to morally responsible. Legally may be a different matter, depending on facts.

I've "moved" nowhere. This is the ethics and morality forum. I have always been referring to morally responsible.

If I have not made that clear, or said anything to imply otherwise, my bad.

The fact that morally sometimes (but not always) leads to legally responsibile is true, but not particularly germane to the discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, moral responsibility is far more important than legal responsibility... although there's no reason both can't apply.

Each man is still responsible for what he does. You don't get to abdicate responsibility by saying, "That guy told me I had to do it" (whether true or not).

...which is what I've been saying All. This. Time.

No man, no law, no tradition, no god can take away your personal responsibility for your words and actions... although many people wish they could.

...but they can share in that responsibility -- but sharing responsibility does not cause it to diminish.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And there is always duress.



He is responsible -- thank you.

NO, there most decidedly is NOT always duress in criminal actions. (I cited the mob as an exception, not the rule).

If a group of friends decides to go rob a bank, any one can say no and back out. The smart ones will. No duress, unless you want to say peer pressure - duress. Nope.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

US state laws make all the conspirators equally responsible.

No, that is not true. Elements have to be met, and those can vary by state.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Duress in organized crime is from boss down to operator.

As expected.

 

[RDKirk]

Throughout. Where do you want to start? Man is made in the Image of God and has authority over all creation. While man stumbled and lost it for awhile, there was still the Law, which dictated the rights and responsibilities of humans to each other. Jesus restored the authority to man, first the apostles, then the 70, and then via the Holy Spirit to "those who are far off".

All existing rights arise out of man's inherent value as made in the image of God.

Point me to the inalienable right to free speech. Or for that matter, to an inalienable right to life.

 

[TLK Valentine]

NO, there most decidedly is NOT always duress in criminal actions. (I cited the mob as an exception, not the rule).

I'm not talking about criminal actions -- I'm talking about any authoritative hierarchy with a "leader" and "followers."

The Mob is one such example. The military another. The government in general yet another.

 

[RDKirk]

Sure, that type of matter was debated in the Nuremberg trials and collectively we found that "just following orders" is not a good defense. The US military has protocol saying you should not follow an illegal order, the reality on the ground might not allow for that but in theory at least that's what we stand for.

But none of that is in question here, what's in question is if leaders, be they actual or spiritual, are responsible for the things they say that their followers absorb and act on and what counts as an order and to who.

I'll point out again that in the military, the leader's act of giving an illegal order is also illegal, even if those under his authority do not obey it.