Text 13255, 58 rader
Skriven 2007-03-31 11:59:23 av Angelika Tobisch (16698.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 13252 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (16695.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Q on Lochley/Garibaldi
==================================
Matthew Vincent schrieb:

>> John has already mentioned this and it's true, there
>> weren't all that many Germans who actually killed Jews. Lots
>> and lots of Germans came out of the Nazi time without ever
>> having been ordered to do something immoral.
>=20
> A good point, although a number of parties (including the Catholic
> church) did actively support the Nazis during WW2.

True. There was an active Protestant resistant movement called
"Bekennende Kirche" ("Confessing Church") though. Just for the sake of
completeness.

>> According to Lochley that's all the reason they need
>> for having done nothing to oppose the regime. It's not.
>=20
> This is essentially the problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative, as
> well. Kant's idea is that, as long as the agent does nothing wrong,
> then anyone else who does something wrong is responsible for their own
> actions and that isn't the agent's fault. He gives the example that
> you are supposedly best to not lie to a murderer, because if you lie
> then you've done something wrong, whereas if you tell the truth and
> the murderer kills someone, then only the murderer (but not you) has
> done something wrong. I take issue with this idea because it separates
> ethics/morality from consequences, and in fact doing something just
> because you want to be considered a good person is extremely selfish
> (this kinda relates to _Comes the Inquisitor_, too).

Which is why I don't just adhere to the sentiment expressed in a
wide-spread German saying "don't do anything to anyone that you wouldn't
want anyone to do to you" ("Was Du nicht willst, da=DF man Dir tu, das f=FC=
g
auch keinem andern zu.") but try to go for "do to others what you want
to them to do to you". IMO it's a fine but essential distinction because
it makes you active.

> A more consequentialist view (which I think is best) is that, as a
> rule of thumb applying in most situations, lying is wrong, but that's
> only because telling the truth has a good outcome in most situations
> because most verbal communication is with a person who has no relevant
> wrongful intentions. There are exceptions, and an individual needs to
> make their choices based on situational factors as well. Pretty much
> any predetermined value set, like "lying is wrong", is a
> generalisation and it has exceptions. Ditto for predetermined value
> sets about following orders and laws when you're in the military or
> otherwise a government official. (The standard of proof for a
> government official to break the law is higher than for a private
> citizen, but there are certainly situations where it does apply, and
> the Sheridan/Clark plot is one such example.)

That reminds me of people who block an ambulance at a traffic light
because the only way they can make room is by going forward and that
would mean violating the red light. Frustrating to watch.

Angelika
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)