The Few and the Many: On Death and Culpability

[Tiassa]

Source: KOMO 4 (Associated Press)
Link: http://www.komotv.com/news/national/17057006.html
Title: "Girl, 11, dies of treatable illness after parents pick prayer over medicine", by Robert Imrie
Date: March 27, 2008

Suffer the little children ....

Moderator Note — Splinter

This topic is a splinter from the thread "Murder by faith". While I feel there is a valid consideration to be made about the few and the many—both in terms of victims and who is culpable—the unflinching, rigid digression brought on by the comparison of one girl denied diagnostic care by her parents to the complex mess of international politics merits its own discussion that will either persist here in EM&J, be transferred over to politics if it so merits, or be dumped in the Cesspool.

At present, there may be more posts from the original topic to be transferred here. The present count is sixty-five posts transferred from the original topic, to speak nothing of the deletions that, for their utter lack of relevance or intelligence, did not merit inclusion in either discussion.

The above article reference is the source article for the original discussion, and the issue against which the effects of international sanctions against Iraq, dating from the end of the first Iraqi Bush Adventure (also known as "Desert Storm" or "The Gulf War") until the current Iraqi Bush Adventure, are being compared.​

 

[S.A.M.]

Still don't get it. So if I, through neglect, cause the death of one child, I'm a criminal.

But, if I impose sanctions that result in the death of half a million children through avoidable causes, I'm a liberal representing democracy and justice.

 

[Tiassa]

No, seriously, would you really like me to pretend you're stupid?

Still don't get it. So if I, through neglect, cause the death of one child, I'm a criminal.

But, if I impose sanctions that result in the death of half a million children through avoidable causes, I'm a liberal representing democracy and justice.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that and you know it.

Just like if I steal from you, I'm a criminal. But if I willingly invest in a corporation that lies to you and steals from you through fraud, I should be protected by law from any liability for my participation.

If you neglect your child to death, that's you. And, maybe, your spouse/partner. What one or two people can pass and enforce international sanctions? Would you like me to pretend you're incapable of figuring out the difference?

 

[S.A.M.]

yes you will be a criminal, neglect is a criminal act all on its own! and perants are seperated from they're kids all the time because of it, and faith has nothing (or shouldnt) have anything to do with it, if you cause the death of your child because of faith, then your neglegent

So who will go to prison for the dead half a million kids?

 

[Avatar]

The question isn't about some unknown half a million, this thread is about one particular child, her right to life and her parents.
Again you are offtopicking a discussion! No go, SAM, either keep on topic or scram and take your agenda elsewhere

 

[S.A.M.]

The question isn't about some unknown half a million, this thread is about one particular child, her right to life and her parents.
Again you are offtopicking a discussion! No go, SAM, either keep on topic or scram and take your agenda elsewhere

I'm interested in the kind of society that thinks a parents ignorance should be punished as a crime but is willing to deliberately kill half a million children as a form of punitive measure.

What makes one wrong and the other right?

 

[spidergoat]

Iraqis themselves are responsible for their own children. So are we.

 

[Avatar]

I'm interested in the kind of society that thinks a parents ignorance should be punished as a crime but is willing to deliberately kill half a million children as a form of punitive measure.

What makes one wrong and the other right?

Indian Penal Code, hypocrite:
120[304A. Causing death by negligence
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

And nobody is deliberately killing half a million or whatever amount of children. Want to discuss it, create a new discussion in World events or something.
Be sure to include child slavery in India in that topic too.

 

[S.A.M.]

Iraqis themselves are responsible for their own children. So are we.

Interesting. So the people who imposed the sanctions that were the direct cause of the death of those half a million children (in a country where, before the sanctions the major health problem in children was obesity) have no responsibility for their deaths?

Who thought the price is worth it?

 

[spidergoat]

Indirect, not direct.

 

[S.A.M.]

Indirect, not direct.

Direct. The children died (mostly due to diarrhoea and malnutrition) because the sanctions made food and medicines unavailable, much like the mothers faith made medicines unavailable to this girl.

So if this mother thinks "the price is worth it", why is it wrong?

 

[Avatar]

Indirect.
The mother had a direct obligation to take her child to doctor, which she didn't do.
Those who denied some food shipments didn't have a direct obligation to feed some children.

 

[greenberg]

I'm interested in the kind of society that thinks a parents ignorance should be punished as a crime but is willing to deliberately kill half a million children as a form of punitive measure.

What makes one wrong and the other right?

That one was committed against one's own citizens, and the other was not.
Basic tribal behavior: Kill and harm your enemies if you see fit, but restrict and sanction killing and harming within the own tribe.

 

[S.A.M.]

That one was committed against one's own citizens, and the other was not.
Basic tribal behavior: Kill and harm your enemies if you see fit, but restrict and sanction killing and harming within the own tribe.

Ah so a mother having a belief that God will do whats best is wrong, while whole nations having a belief that what their representatives will do whats best is right, even when it involves killing half a million children. Is that correct?

 

[greenberg]

So if this mother thinks "the price is worth it", why is it wrong?

Because she has killed or harmed a citizen.
A parent's child isn't simply their own, their property to do with it whatever they want. People are society's property, if anything.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because she has killed or harmed a citizen.
A parent's child isn't simply their own, their property to do with it whatever they want. People are society's property, if anything.

Except when those children are belonging to another tribe. Then its "self defence" to use them as bargaining chips.

 

[S.A.M.]

Indirect.
The mother had a direct obligation to take her child to doctor, which she didn't do.
Those who denied some food shipments didn't have a direct obligation to feed some children.

Hmm so although the UN knew, from the reports of doctors and health professionals, that children under 5 were dying due to their policies, they had no obligation to stop those policies. Is that correct? It was not unethical to continue polices that were causing large numbers of children to die?

What determines obligation for the mother? What alleviates obligation for the sanction imposers? Under what circumstances is it okay to let people die when your actions would keep them alive?

 

[Avatar]

Maybe it was, I'm not familiar with the case, but it sure has nothing to do with US criminal law protecting its citizens.

 

[S.A.M.]

The OP asks about justice. ie is there justice.

My conclusion.

Justice is fiction. Why worry about what doesn't exist?

Clearly it is okay to let people die for your beliefs.

 

[Avatar]

Justice comes from morals. If a society finds that the lives of its own members are more worth that lives of members of other society, then so it is for that society