RCSaunders wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:24 am
... abdication of moral responsibility for others.
No human being is born a slave of other human beings.
Not "slave." Good heavens, man...nobody said "slave."
We're merely talking about having what's called "common human decency," the sort of "decency" that cannot look with indifference on another person being hurt, exploited, violated or destroyed.
And I'm thinking you're one of those people. If I'm wrong, tell me.
All that happened in Nazi Germany was only possible because most Germans were not independent individuals.
So you're saying, "People ought
to be independent individuals?" "Ought," then?
So it's not true you won't prescribe duty to others. You will. You will say that they should
be "independent individuals." They have a duty (somehow, you'll have to explain) to be that, and not collectivists, or followers, or whatever. That's bad,
you say...? But that is also prescribing a moral duty.
What happened in Germany would have been impossible to a society of independent individuals because there could not have been anyone who regarded any unchosen aspect of a human being, what one is born with, as a matter of significance, only what an individual actually did and made of himself matters to independent individuals.
So now, not only SOME people have a duty to be "independent individuals," but ALL people have that duty, so that things like what happened in Germany cannot happen? Again, you've gone beyond the strictly individual here, and are now prescribing for others.
Or do you instead say, "It would have been okay for some to be Nazis and Jew-killers," if that's that they individually wanted, and the rest to be "independent" bystanders, who owed to do nothing about it? If you say that, though, then it's apparent that what happened in Germany WOULD have happened, because that's exactly what DID happen.
Which position are you wanting to take?
1. No one has a moral duty to be an "independent individual," or any other moral duty, so Nazi death camps are fine if others want them. I'm prepared to accept genocide as an option for "independent individuals" to practice, if they choose, and for others to suffer, whether they choose or not.
2. Everyone has a moral duty to be an "independent individual," so death camps don't happen...but now, morality is no longer "independent," and I'm my brother's keeper, since I'm telling some "brothers" what their moral duty is, and protecting other "brothers" from getting killed in horrendous fashion.
But whichever you take, the theory that we can all just act as "independent individuals" is in moral trouble.
You are not your brother's keeper.
Of course, I'm going to side with Abel on that question, not with Cain.
What being your brother's keeper really means is being your brother's boss.
No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It just means looking out for his interests...perhaps the same interests that he, as an individual, would himself have.
If someone's breaking into your neighbour's house, and you call the cops, you are being "your brother's keeper." But it's not at all clear how that would make you his "boss."
He makes his choices, you make yours. If you make bad choices it is not up to your brother to clean up after you.
What if his choice is to kill Jews?