Coercion, etc.

Inspired by discussion in the "What would you do in this murder case?" thread.

What is the moral difference between someone committing an atrocity independently and somebody committing the exact same act under the coercion or brainwashing of someone else (go ahead and bring up Nazis if you must; it is the elephant in the room, after all)? Are they any less responsible in the latter case, or less destructive as an individual human?

Another interesting question the other thread evoked was, what is the difference between someone causing harm who is healthy and someone causing the exact same harm who is compromised by a mental condition like sociopathy or some other untreatable personality defect?

I guess the main question is, what is the relationship between induced or inborn mental condition (those parts the person can't help) and morality? Because while morality seems to be about the choices we make to help or hurt, there are plenty of cases where someone does something influenced by ill health they didn't choose to have, but that many agree is just evil anyway, a moral judgment. I don't know what I think, but I do want to know how that figures.

*thread assumes morality at least exists as a concept worth testing*

whoever wrote this shit needs to step on a rake in a comedic fashion

With coercion, it depends on the circumstances of the coercion. For example, if a person's life was in danger, I would be more likely to forgive him/her. Does brainwashing actually exist?

People should not lose their liberties because of sickness. They are not expendable sub-humans. By the way, psychopaths don't have an innate compulsion to do evil. A psychopathic criminal is fully aware of his/her actions, and thus the punishment should fit the crime.

If a person is literally forced to do evil by mental illness, that person deserves mental treatment. If a person is unable to understand the consequences of crime, that person deserves treatment, and should probably be confined for everyone's sake. If a cognizant person chooses to be a criminal, the punishment depends on the immorality of the crime.

edited 16th Feb '11 3:35:11 PM by Grain

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

This is a good question that I didn't even know was debated at all.

whoever wrote this shit needs to step on a rake in a comedic fashion

Its a very tough question for sure. Obviously a person that acts under coercion cant be held completely responsible, but I still dont think they should be let completely off either, some measure of punishment is still necessary.

I dont know why they let me out, I guess they needed a spare bed

I'd say that person who was coerced has mitigating circumstances and can sometimes be forgiven, but their actions are still their own. Technically they could refuse. So to me it would depend on the proportion of the wrong they've committed and the one they were threatened with. If, say, person is intimidated into stealing something, it can be forgiven because their own life which they acted to preserve is more valuable than property. But if they were threatened to kill other people - I would still consider them responsible. Because any of us can say no, even if it might be the last thing we do in our lives. And yes, this one is fully aware that she is a weak-willed coward who would almost certainly give in to coercion. But it still won't make her actions excusable, and if other people would hold her responsible for them - they have that right.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Depends on the severity of the crime and the kind of coercion. A kid who is pressured into shoplifting isn't a big deal, but a soldier who is ordered to execute an innocent person is a murderer.

In purely abstract terms: have we been taught, under any circumstances, that sacrificing another's life for your own is okay?

Exceptions abound, but coercion to murder is where I believe that some moral line must be drawn.

The person under coercion is still responsible, the coercion simply means that there is one more person who needs to be punished: the coercer.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I believe that, with any crime, your intent/other important circumstances should be (and probably are) taken into consideration. There are many reasons for this, including a "feel-good" sympathy reaction for those in difficult situations, and the intention/circumstances lessening the chance of repeat occurances. The general idea is that the punishment fits the crime, and less intentional/malicious crimes are deserving of lesser punishment.  ^*

Sufficient coercion (i.e., gun to head) might be enough to enull certain crimes completely, while more serious crimes would probably be lessened; lessened but not mitigated completely.

Just seeing that avatar in a thread on law enforcement made me laugh pretty hard.  ^*

edited 16th Feb '11 9:52:16 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

An excellent point. But intent is highly subjective.

I value my own life highly and wouldn't even think of someone who sacrificed their life for mine or any single person as a particularly nice person, just some one who puts a very low value on their own lives.

| DA Page | Sketchbook |

Moral luck worth mentioning here?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Actually, that is exactly the concept I was trying to get across in the OP.

What I was asking was people's viewpoints on the act described in this quote:

That is, how much do intent, circumstances and the mental state of the person matter when assigning moral blame (or praise; that's a good thought) for something they did? Much more concise.

whoever wrote this shit needs to step on a rake in a comedic fashion

I hate, hate, hate moral luck.

Unfortunately though, it is a necessary presence.

After all we can't charge everyone who has broken the speed limit with vehicular manslaughter, now can we?

Unless, perhaps, a system were put in place that would be fair to this, allowing people to make mistakes but eventually charging them after X number of times?

I'll start a thread for this.

edited 18th Feb '11 6:51:10 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Any time you deal with an organization it screws the valences of culpability. No one who commits a crime under orders while wearing a uniform can be truly culpable in the way that a freer man would be.

Why? They can refuse

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

When it comes to the army, it's...complicated. On the one hand, they take oaths to give their lives for citizens. On the other, they're conditioned for years to follow orders, no questions asked. All things being equal, I would probably hold a random civilian given a gun and told to kill someone more accountable than a trained military man given orders from above to kill someone. Orders from a stranger or even an acquaintance in a civilian setting hold a lot less weight than orders from superior officers in a military setting. Even then, authority holds a ridiculous sway, as shown in the Milgram Experiment.

What I want is a way to modify people (genetically or socially) so that 70% of us wouldn't just painfully murder someone because a guy in a labcoat says so.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

If somebody has been coerced into committing a crime, a court would have to consider the mens rea very carefully and determine their intent. Identifying intent is absolutely indispensible to the function of criminal law; there must be both a guilty act (actus rea) and a guilty mind (mens rea) for the defendant to be liable for the crime.

edited 21st Feb '11 1:14:05 PM by TheGloomer

↑↑In my view, a person who has chosen to take part of a group where he has agreed to have his own free will removed from him or made willingly superseded, in order to apparently protect such weird and debatable ideas of what a "nation" or "state" is or should be (because, after all, soldiers are ordered to kill the people they are suppossedly protecting) is far more accountable than a civil who happens to get the fortune of having a gun available when they have to protect their family, no matter how good the intentions of those who remove the will of the former apparently are.

EDIT: clarified on free will

edited 21st Feb '11 3:13:27 PM by SilentReverence

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?

Well, I guess this question depends on how you would define brainwashing. Depending on how you would do that, either everybody is brainwashed, or nobody is brainwashed.

edited 21st Feb '11 3:45:09 PM by Herbarius

A question I've posed in the thread that branched off of this one: if we are at all responsible for what we do even if circumstances guide us into it, doesn't that mean that the strengthening of ourselves against people and other forces that might manipulate us a moral duty? That is because such self-improvement can help keep us out of situations where we can be coerced into immoral things, reducing the net amount of harm we cause others.

whoever wrote this shit needs to step on a rake in a comedic fashion

It would, probably; the problem is that the only social direction in which you can better yourself to not be forced into doing this is, if I read the suggestion correctly, the direction that means forcibly imposing your morality on others. This because the imposition comes from all angles: social, religious, financial... Otherwise you have to at some point stop and let yourself be morally vulnerable enough. Then again the alternative is to live all your live tempering yourself for some infinity instead of, well, living life, with its risks.

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?