At what point does someone lose there innocence? A baby is innocent because it has no agency. Its parents can be serial killers and the baby wont understand and can't do anything about it, but would an adolescent be innocent if they knew one of there parents was a mob hitman and did nothing about it and lived off the procideds? What about a young adult still living at home? What about the hitmans wife, is she morally innocent when she uses the blood money to spoil herself?
innocence and agency
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
well first of all, if you mean the way that a legal system views it the relevant term is "not guilty". No adult can be termed "innocent".
I think what you may be asking is "innocent of what?" or actually "guilty of what?" being born to murderers does not make one guilty of murder but then otoh i cannot say they are innocent into adulthood because it is too broad. idk, i think it is only in movies for dramatic effect when they say "he is innocent" when what they acually mean is "not guily" of that particular crime.
I dont know what "agency" means in this sense either.
I think what you may be asking is "innocent of what?" or actually "guilty of what?" being born to murderers does not make one guilty of murder but then otoh i cannot say they are innocent into adulthood because it is too broad. idk, i think it is only in movies for dramatic effect when they say "he is innocent" when what they acually mean is "not guily" of that particular crime.
I dont know what "agency" means in this sense either.
Well living off the proceeds is hard to prove. did the money absolutely come from murder or did the father have other ways of making money? If the father was gambling illegally and made a lot of money it is viewed differently than legal gambling yet both are gambling.
And then they may say "well he only killed bad people". To an outside observer this is wrong but when it comes to a parent you would be surprised how we can justify things. Sometimes its a lot to ask for, a child being subjective when it comes to a parent. Even the law tends to cut them slack.
And then they may say "well he only killed bad people". To an outside observer this is wrong but when it comes to a parent you would be surprised how we can justify things. Sometimes its a lot to ask for, a child being subjective when it comes to a parent. Even the law tends to cut them slack.
Sure and that's what this thread is about. Except that there is no ambiguaty, the father is definitely a contract killer and has no other means of income. At what point does someone living in that situation cease to be "an innocent bystander". Forget the laws to do with spousal privilege, that's a legal issue and this one is a moral one. If you want I can make it simpler:
Living in the house there is: 1 baby, 1 10 year old, 1 16 year old, 1 20 year old, 1 wife, 1 brother, 1 brother in law and 1 friend off the street renting a room and of course our contract killer. Which of these people and at what point do these various people stop being innocent bystanders? And if they do stop, what moral responcibility do they have to.stop him?
Living in the house there is: 1 baby, 1 10 year old, 1 16 year old, 1 20 year old, 1 wife, 1 brother, 1 brother in law and 1 friend off the street renting a room and of course our contract killer. Which of these people and at what point do these various people stop being innocent bystanders? And if they do stop, what moral responcibility do they have to.stop him?
A contract killer wouldn't talk about work at home...just saying...he would never talk about work at all, to do so would be to put himself and his employer at risk.
The child would just know daddy disappeared occasionally.
An example from my trailer park:
This Mom got her sons to break into people's houses and steal so she could get drug money-they were limber enough to get through windows, you see.
At what point did they become morally culpable?
The child would just know daddy disappeared occasionally.
An example from my trailer park:
This Mom got her sons to break into people's houses and steal so she could get drug money-they were limber enough to get through windows, you see.
At what point did they become morally culpable?
I dont think it really matters but i would say at 18.
Could have but people under 18 are not held to the same standards as adults. I just dont understand all this talk of moral obligation though. Peoples morals are different and very few people are going to turn a parent in for crimes but i cant see a hitman being honest and telling family members anyway.
The aim of this thread is to work out if people honestly believe that people who profit from a crime have no moral responcibilit for the conqueses of that crime. Ie the mob boss who sits around and says he has no knowledge of what his underlings are doing or people who vote for governments who then kill and opress in there name and then claim to be innocence when the opressed fight back
I see. Asguar, today, at least in U.S, they have RICO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Morally speaking I'd say you lose innocence when you're old enough to have a full understanding of the consequences of your actions. Note *full* understanding, not just 'This is wrong because X said so'.
This is a very gray area and would really have to be judged on a case by case basis. Not knowing the intimate details of any real life situations, let's consider The Soprano's. The wife was fully aware of what her husband did, and so bears more moral responsibity than anyone in the immediate family short of Tony himself. But even there, there are competing ethical principals such as familial loyalty and protecting one's children.
The children, on the other hand, are portrayed as completely oblivious well into their high school years. They do eventually find out, but again, do we really expect a child to turn on their own parents? Children stand by their parents despite horrific and repeated abuse, do you really think they'll turn on them for being in the mob?
As a counter example, consider the Hitler youth. They're widely seen as monsters not just for serving Hitler, but for being so devoted to him that they'd turn in their own mother or father if they spoke out against Hitler.
Betrayal of one's own family is something that goes against deep seated human emotions, even when said family member is doing things you know to be wrong. We are always willing to give those we love the benefit if the doubt often to the point of willful blindness.
Ultimately, it comes down to the severity of the crime the family member has committed and how close you are to them. A mobster is often portrayed as a gentleman. Even a hit man, so long as he only goes after other other mobsters and doesn't kill civilians in the process (ie via a "drive by), is viewed with some respect.
A terrorist, on the other hand. Or a serial killer, would represent so severe a transgression as to force even a family member to turn against them. A famous example would be the brother of the uni-bomber who recognized his brother as the author of the uni-bomber's manifesto and turned him in.
The children, on the other hand, are portrayed as completely oblivious well into their high school years. They do eventually find out, but again, do we really expect a child to turn on their own parents? Children stand by their parents despite horrific and repeated abuse, do you really think they'll turn on them for being in the mob?
As a counter example, consider the Hitler youth. They're widely seen as monsters not just for serving Hitler, but for being so devoted to him that they'd turn in their own mother or father if they spoke out against Hitler.
Betrayal of one's own family is something that goes against deep seated human emotions, even when said family member is doing things you know to be wrong. We are always willing to give those we love the benefit if the doubt often to the point of willful blindness.
Ultimately, it comes down to the severity of the crime the family member has committed and how close you are to them. A mobster is often portrayed as a gentleman. Even a hit man, so long as he only goes after other other mobsters and doesn't kill civilians in the process (ie via a "drive by), is viewed with some respect.
A terrorist, on the other hand. Or a serial killer, would represent so severe a transgression as to force even a family member to turn against them. A famous example would be the brother of the uni-bomber who recognized his brother as the author of the uni-bomber's manifesto and turned him in.
"Moral responsibility" is a different thing than mere "agency." You have to have agency to bear responsibility (as the OP example of a newborn illustrates), but just because you have agency doesn't make you responsible for anything, as such. That all depends on how you employ that agency and what situation you find yourself in. Agency is simply a matter of power - are you capable of comprehending the moral dimensions of the situation, and acting thereupon? Moreover, agency is not a binary category; there are degrees of agency. A teenaged child of a criminal might well have agency - we would not let him get away with killing someone for lack of "moral agency" - but maybe not enough to realistically understand or affect his parents' actions.
Okay ignore the children for a while, they were only there to test the agency side. Lets look at the wife, at what point does she lose the right to put her hands over her ears and say "lah lah lah, I'm not lissening", at what point should she have known?
We have examples throughout society of sayings like "ignorence is no excuse", there is a great story Billy Connolly told at his Sydney show on the world tour of Australia DVD. I had hoped to post a youtube clip of it but I can't find one, it goes like this:
Anyway the point is at what point do we say to they wife, "sorry you want to claim you had no idea, you should have, the evidence was there when you washed his bloody clothes everyday and lived off the money he brought you, sticking you head in the sand is no excuse"
Bells claimed in another thread that those who died in the towers and on the planes were innocents. Now sure there may have been babies and young children there who were but the majority weren't innocent, they were civillans sure but they profited from the opression of others, they voted for a government who then surported Israel with funds, guns and political cover from the rest of the world to allow then to murder paliatinian civilans. Sure in a dictatorship the public have no agency and therefore can't be held responcible but the US, Australia, the UK, NZ ect hold themselves up as democracies which means the lazy public don't just have a right to vote, it means they are responcible for the actions taken in there name, you can't scream "but God, we didn't know" while your solders kill and your government funds dictators so that it doesn't cost as much to.fill up the massive 4wheel drive you bought to show your a big tough man. You can't stick your head in the sand while your government funds, arms and openly protects Israel even when they are atacking your OWN ships
We have examples throughout society of sayings like "ignorence is no excuse", there is a great story Billy Connolly told at his Sydney show on the world tour of Australia DVD. I had hoped to post a youtube clip of it but I can't find one, it goes like this:
(Think of that in a Scottish accent and it cracks me up everytime
Anyway the point is at what point do we say to they wife, "sorry you want to claim you had no idea, you should have, the evidence was there when you washed his bloody clothes everyday and lived off the money he brought you, sticking you head in the sand is no excuse"
Bells claimed in another thread that those who died in the towers and on the planes were innocents. Now sure there may have been babies and young children there who were but the majority weren't innocent, they were civillans sure but they profited from the opression of others, they voted for a government who then surported Israel with funds, guns and political cover from the rest of the world to allow then to murder paliatinian civilans. Sure in a dictatorship the public have no agency and therefore can't be held responcible but the US, Australia, the UK, NZ ect hold themselves up as democracies which means the lazy public don't just have a right to vote, it means they are responcible for the actions taken in there name, you can't scream "but God, we didn't know" while your solders kill and your government funds dictators so that it doesn't cost as much to.fill up the massive 4wheel drive you bought to show your a big tough man. You can't stick your head in the sand while your government funds, arms and openly protects Israel even when they are atacking your OWN ships
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
What makes you think they personally profited from anything? What was the benefit to the secretary or janitor? I hope after that rant you accept the death penalty to be completely justifiable considering they are not innocent of any crimes, surely they deserve their due yes?
As for the wife if she wasn't aware of another's crime then she cannot be held responsible unless of course she was lax on the use of her crystal ball.
Do you believe that the people of Iraq should be held accountable for Saddam's aggressions against Iran? If so their deaths through UN sanctions are only their comeuppance.
Similarly I say all Australians should immediately vacate their nation or suffer some sort of murderous assault from the Abo community since it is the Australian's, more so than the Israeli's, who stole their land and oppressed them. Does that sound right to you?
What I love about your reasoning is that it allows for counter-actions like Bush's war because by your reasoning the people of Afghanistan are just as responsible as the Taliban for allowing terrorist training camps to proliferate which lead to the twin towers, in which case I would say 'we're even'.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
How? How did you personally profit from government support of Israel or the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Hell you didn't even get lower gas prices out of it!:shrug:
If anything you were the losers since Bush asked you all to fork-out 20 billion of your own money to help rebuild Iraq! Do you live in Iraq? Are your schools, factories and hospitals there? No? So how did you personally benefit?