Posted on 12/07/2012 1:17:56 PM PST by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Once upon a time I was an aspiring media professional. My very first foray into the business was as summer newspaper intern with The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Near the end of my internship, I was given an assignment that haunts me to this very day.
I was told to go out to a Cleveland suburb where a shooter was reportedly spraying bullets in a residential neighborhood.
When I arrived at scene, police had cordoned off the block where the shooter – a troubled 17 year-old kid – was holed up in his house. After what seemed like hours, but probably were more like minutes, a SWAT team stormed the house.
I expected an exchange of gunfire, but there was none. Then paramedics were summoned to the house, where they removed the lifeless body of the kid, who, it turned out, had turned the gun on himself.
It shook me to my very core. Not the least because the deceased was only two years younger than I was.
But as I learned in J-school, I had to get to story; I had to interview witnesses.
So I approached the young man’s family, which had huddled behind the police cordon, along with neighbors that had been evacuated.
They were near hysterical. But, still, I asked them if they had anything to say to the newspaper.
They looked right through me. And I didn’t blame them. Because I intruded upon them at a time when they should have been left alone with their grief.
I was reminded of that experience when heard the tragic story of Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who worked at King Edward VII Hospital in London, where expected mum Kate Middleton was treated this week.
Jacintha was so traumatized by a hoax played on her by two oh-so-clever Australian radio jocks – who pretended to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles calling for Kate – that she killed herself yesterday.
My heart breaks for the deceased nurse and her family.
The tragedy confirms to me what I have learned during a media career of more than two decades: Many of those who work in print, digital, radio and television are closer to the prince of this world than to Christ.
Their God-lessness informs their approach to mass communication. If they can put something in print, or over the airwaves, that creates buzz, that attracts readers or listeners or viewers, they’re good to go with it.
Even if it causes a poor nurse so much despair, she finds her life no longer worth living.
I never said that other don’t or can’t influence behavior. I said that one is reponsible for one’s own decisions.
Especially in the case of suicide. Holding someone else reponsible for another person’s suicide is madness.
“Now, if you walk up to a random person in a mall and start berating them just to make them feel small and embarass them and they then go and kill their self, you may not have any legal culpability, but if indeed that was the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak, that your belittling of the person was just the latest in a long string of events unknown to even you, then yes, you have at least a small degree of moral culpability. “
The only thing the person in this example is morally culpable for is being a jerk.
If the person who was berrated goes and kills themselves after because the world is full of jerks and they were tired of jerks being jerks to them, then they killed themselves.
But other people clearly influence those decisions, and they do so positively or negatively.
Somebody falsely slandered, who has their reputation and liveliehood maliciously destroyed may choose to commit suicide. Certainly that was their decision, but it's the actions of another person that put them in a position where they came to believe it was their best, if not their only option. Would you excuse the slanderer from moral culpability for the suicide?
You say, "Especially in the case of suicide. Holding someone else reponsible for another person’s suicide is madness."
I think that's merely a case of degree. When you influence another person's actions and choices through humiliation, degradation, physical or psychological threat, you are responsible. Some people may react by punching back, some may react by merely feeling bad, and others may react in the extreme by killing themselves. Regardless of the specific reaction, it is the person that prompts it who carries a degree of responsibility for it. While I think we would agree that suicide is a horrible, extreme and irrational reaction, it is one that is typically not made in a vaccum, and is prompted by some stimuli, or as in my pebble analogy, a series or accumulation of stimuli and circumstances.
I simply find it curious that you represent yourself as a champion of personal accountability and responsibility, and you acknowledge that words and deeds can influence another person's actions, but you deny any linkage between the responsibility one must hold for the actions their words or deeds may influence.
“but you deny any linkage between the responsibility one must hold for the actions their words or deeds may influence.”
What method and degree of accountability for said responsibility do you propose?
Who will meter out this accountability?
If we as humans are to be held responsibile for the actions of others, then please give me my solitary cell now, I would prefer nothing more to do with insane humans over whose actions I have no control whatsoever.
I've repeatedly said specifically in regards to these two DJs and in more general statements that there's probably no legal culpability, but certainly a degree of moral culpability. As such, that's something every person is going to have to be prepared to answer for some day, and while I may not have any notion what the correct, "method and degree" are, I'm positive that perfect judgment will be rendered for every one of our words, deeds and thoughts to others.
Fortunately, the standard is pretty clear, elegantly simple and well defined: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Pretty basic, eh?
"Who will meter out this accountability?"
God.
"If we as humans are to be held responsibile for the actions of others, then please give me my solitary cell now..."
Are you opposed to laws against inciting to riot? Do you think people who incite others to riot should not be held accountable?
One more question. Charlie Manson. Think he ought to be cut loose? He is after all, essentially being held prisoner for the actions of his underlings. Do you think we ought to hold him accountable for the actions he influenced, but didn’t participate in directly?
Purposely whipping people into a riotous fenzy is not what happened here.
General human interaction cannot be viewed as purposeful incitement to riot.
A riot is a specifically defined event which in most cases results in violence or loss to others who were never involved.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously, people who solicit murder but do not actually commit the violence of that crime are also held accountable for their participation in its planning.
Simply interacting with other people, even if that action is harsh, less than friendly, rude cannot be considered the same. Even abuse has to be established over a period of time before it can be used as any sort of viable defense against action taken to stop said abuse.
It’s not the same thig, Joe.
Manson was a cult leader and the mastermind of a grisly crime.
We are talking about a woman who killed herself. She brought the loss of her life on herself. No one else did.
You want to hold others responsible for what she did.
Tell me, whom shall we hold responsible for the Joker’s murderous actions in the movie theater in Colorado?
Who influenced his behavior?
Where shall we start?
Shall we start with the doctor who violently spanked him upon his arrival in this world in order to initiate breathing?
Shall we start with his kintergarten classmates?
Shall we start with the doctor he sent his manifesto to?
Shall we persecute them all for his crimes?
Joe, she is responsible for taking her own life. No one else did that but her.
Nor did I say it was. I was only using that example to illustrate that even under the law there is a recognition that people can be held accountable for the actions of others that they influence.
"General human interaction cannot be viewed as purposeful incitement to riot."
No, but the very word, "interaction" presupposes the notion of stimuli and response. It suggests that any and all human interaction will influence, modify or change the behavior of either party involved, as opposed to the behavior that would have occurred sans the interaction. Those modified behaviors may be as slight as an acknowledging glance or tip of the hat to a much more formal, elaborate interchange, but in either case both parties involved influence the behavior of one another. Being cognizant that our interactions with other people will influence their behavior, attitudes, emotions etc., we assume a moral responsibility (morality being that which governs our interactions with others) to make our best effort to make those interchanges positive. That's why when somebody says, "Good Morning," responding in kind is a much more viable option than punching them in the nose, or ignoring them altogether. Intentionally ignoring somebody to slight them or to knowingly make them uncomfortable may be perfectly legal. I would argue that it is unabashedly immoral, knowing we would not want to be treated in that manner.
"I think you are comparing apples to oranges."
Again, I was making no such comparison, merely illustrating that the law recognizes that under certain circumstances persons may be held accountable for influencing the behavior of others, and while jurisprudence requires strict definitions and standards of proof, general morality simply breaks down into "right" or "wrong."
"Simply interacting with other people, even if that action is harsh, less than friendly, rude cannot be considered the same."
From a strictly legal perspective you are 100% correct; We may find them to be legal or illegal based on the application of numerous criteria and contextual circumstances. From a moral perspective however, every interaction with others is either moral or immoral, "right" or wrong," and what is legal may not always be moral. This is especially true when and where governments become increasingly corrupt and pass corrupt laws.
"Even abuse has to be established over a period of time before it can be used as any sort of viable defense against action taken to stop said abuse."
Suppose that arbitrarily, the law says it must have five documented instances of abuse before a child can be removed from a home. Does that make the five undocumented cases ok? Is it ok if the abuser stops at four? Again, the law in those instances holds no account since the condition it sets (i.e. five documented cases) has not been met. Morally however, any abuse, documented or otherwise, is unacceptable.
Excellent discussion. Question: Was Satan at all culpable for the Fall, or were Adam and Eve entirely responsible for eating the forbidden fruit?
Show me where I've called for anybody's head. I stated that if others were responsible, they would (ultimately) be held accountable. Two very different things, your, "apples and oranges" so to speak.
I have clearly differentiated over and over, that legal and moral are two different things. I'm not familiar enough with British Law to know if these two have any legal culpability. I did hold out that their actions may have been contributing factors to the woman's decision to take her life, and if so, they are, and will someday be held accountable for same.
We have no way of knowing, but there is One who knows all, and these two will have to answer for their role if they had one.
Let's turn the scenario inside out. Has anyone you care about ever come to you for advice in a decision they were trying to make? If so, you probably gave them the best, most sound advice you could because you wanted them to make the right decision. Now, it's up to them to accept or ignore your advice, but let's assume they respect you and took your advice. You influenced their decision. Let's say they come back and thank you for steering them in the right direction. They give you part of the credit, and IMHO, deservedly so. Without your influence they may have chosen another path.
Now, if you can accept credit for helping somebody make a proper decision, why should somebody who, through force, duress, humiliation, etc, prompts somebody to make a poor decision not be held at least partially accountable? Again, perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but certainly from a moral one.
Yes, Adam and Eve are entirely responsible for eating the fruit. It was their choice to do so.
I compare this to events that occurred in my own life.
When I was 15 years old, my best friend and I went to my step grandfathers farm in South Carolina for summer vacation, during which time my friend Chad discovered a marijuana roach on a basement window sill. It had belonged to my step uncle Frank, a viet nam vet. Nice guy, completely screwed in the head though.
Chad knew what it was and what it was for. I did not. He lit it, smoked it, inhaled and held, made it look all too pleasurable. Then he passed it to me, and I did the same.
That was the very start of a long, dark path on which I freely chose to walk.
Was their temptation involved? Yes. Was that temptation responsible for my decision to partake? No. I was. It had always been my decision, however well or poorly thought out, it was mine.
Ironically, some years later, Chad’s father chased me all over town in a car chase because I had exposed Chad to drugs...sometimes it seems that responsibility and accountability are in the eyes of the beholder.
While I realize that in certain cases such as solicitation of murder, one can and should be held accountable for influencing another to commit a criminal act, even to the extent of saying that the influencer is not only as guilty but in some cases even more guilty than the one who committed the actual violence, it is different in this particular case and in the case of suicide in general.
With regard to your disticntion of moral and legal culpabilty, I can only agree that in cases that relate to suicide as a result of negative behavior toward that person, the culpability only goes as far as what that negative behavior actually was.
In one of the examples I listed where I would have had a bad day then treated someone in the manner of a jerk, and then that person later committed suicide, I am morally culpable of behaving as a jerk.
It is possible that I would make the connection in my mind that my jerkish behavior may have been a factor in this person’s decision to commit suicide, or it may not have been. In either case, the only thing I am guilty of is behaving as a jerk.
Notice that in the case of Dharun Ravi, he was found guilty and sentenced only on the crimes that he actually committed. He was in no way guilty of causing this man’s death. Clementi caused his own death. I beleive Ravi did behave as a “jerk” and criminally so, in so far as he invaded privacy and did intimidate or humiliate by posting the video online, but if I recall correctly, people wanted this man to do hard time for this event, which would have been a miscarriage of justice.
Why don’t people get informed before commenting?
The woman did not embarrass the Royal Family and did not disclose anything. She merely connected the pranksters’ call to a nurse who did. She was not reprimanded by the employer.
Get it?
God held all parties accountable, but I think it's interesting to note that starting in Gen. 3:14, His first response is to address and punish the serpent, after which he gave Adam and Eve their talking to.
And I would simply refer back to that, "Do unto others," prescription which might have prevented the suicide, and would have entirely eliminated any moral culpability :-)
I never said you did, come on now. I don't believe that you would want these men charged with murder and facing the consequences of such a charge. They obviously did not commit murder.
With your regard to your example of advice given, I say this. What I told them or did not tell them is not relevent, because in the end the decision made by such person is that person's decision.
People need to know that they have free will. Making the right decision and the intelligent decision in any given situation is the responsibility of a free person, furthermore that is not always guaranteed to happen, and I would venture to say that it occurs less than 50% of the time.
But such is the burden of a free person, because accepting otherwise means that person will not be a free person, but rather a subject of the influence and decisions of others.
All they did was prank call her, Joe. I’m sure they have been pranked before, and they survived.
If we cannot engage in an activity because of how others may potentially respond to it, then as I said before, prepare my solitary cell, none of us will be free.
The way I see it it is a debate between cliche spitting, and as it always follows (or rather precedes) cliche thinking, and a thoughtful view of human condition.
Are you certain of that? When your friend approaches you and says, "Hey...I need some advice..." you basically have three choices:
1. You can tell him to get bent and go pound salt.
2. You can deliberately steer him wrong and intentionally give him what you feel is bad advice.
3. You can hear him out and based on your knowledge and experience, give him the best advice you can.
You refer to "free will" and certainly you can do any of the above, but I would submit that a person with a conscience and a moral compass would have their free will over ridden by a "moral obligation" to take course of action #3. If one ignored their moral compass and opted for #1 or #2 just to see what happened 'cause it might be fun, I think it's reasonable to say that the failure to meet that obligation led to moral culpability if the advice seeker would have otherwise followed the good advice had it been given.
"People need to know that they have free will. Making the right decision and the intelligent decision in any given situation is the responsibility of a free person..."
And right and intelligent decisions are best made with full, accurate, complete information. When others gain the trust of a person and misrepresent themselves and circumstances, they have impaired that person's ability to make the best decision possible. Following your assertion to its logical conclusion, every person who has ever perpetrated fraud should be held blameless since their victims made poor decisions, and were responsible for making good decisions. There are some suckers out there who still fall for the Nigerian Prince scams (or the Kenyan President scams), and fail to do any due diligence. However, there are people make reasonable efforts to verify the information they are making their decisions on, and still get taken for everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.