Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Inaction in the face of injustice.

Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

I haven't been able to find very many debates done on this topic, despite it being such a debatable topic. That being the case, I may possibly do one in the future. So in preparation, I'd like to discuss it here and see what others think about this idea.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?
Does injustice always warrant intervention?
How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?
Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?
Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

I like to think we can find some middle ground most of us can agree on.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:19:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Wasn't this the LD topic for nationals?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:29:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 3:19:14 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Wasn't this the LD topic for nationals?

It was.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 3:29:46 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/14/2015 3:19:14 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Wasn't this the LD topic for nationals?

It was.

I thought it sounded familiar. :)

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?
Yes, injustice can warrant intervention. In fact, I think that the majority of injustices do warrant some type of intervention. The difference is that certain types of injustices warrant higher levels of intervention than others.

Does injustice always warrant intervention?
No, but as I said above, most cases do warrant some intervention.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?
It depends on the individual and what they believe is enough injustice to warrant an intervention. Most of the time injustice has to occur on a very personal basis for an individual to take action.

Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?
If the costs significantly outweigh the benefits, their inaction is justified.

Is this even a problem considering your moral system?
No, I tend to hold a position that speaking out against injustice is very important, but I will not hold someone accountable for not speaking out. Different people hold various ideas of what constitutes injustice and I will not punish someone for not agreeing with my idea of injustice.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 3:35:37 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/14/2015 3:29:46 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/14/2015 3:19:14 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Wasn't this the LD topic for nationals?

It was.

I thought it sounded familiar. :)

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?
Yes, injustice can warrant intervention. In fact, I think that the majority of injustices do warrant some type of intervention. The difference is that certain types of injustices warrant higher levels of intervention than others.

Why does injustice warrant intervention at all?

Does injustice always warrant intervention?
No, but as I said above, most cases do warrant some intervention.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?
It depends on the individual and what they believe is enough injustice to warrant an intervention. Most of the time injustice has to occur on a very personal basis for an individual to take action.

Since you acknowledge that what qualifies as injustice is dependent on the individual, do you believe we can't hold others morally culpable? Only ourselves?

Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?
If the costs significantly outweigh the benefits, their inaction is justified.

Could you give an situation demonstrating what would be considered a significant risk?

Is this even a problem considering your moral system?
No, I tend to hold a position that speaking out against injustice is very important, but I will not hold someone accountable for not speaking out. Different people hold various ideas of what constitutes injustice and I will not punish someone for not agreeing with my idea of injustice.

Maybe this answered my previous question.
So you don't believe an individual is morally culpable if they were to ignore someone who is about to be shot? You wouldn't hold it against them since they have a differing opinion of injustice? I personally don't disagree.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 3:53:12 PM, Kozu wrote:

Why does injustice warrant intervention at all?

Primarily because others are suffering.

Since you acknowledge that what qualifies as injustice is dependent on the individual, do you believe we can't hold others morally culpable? Only ourselves?

No, I don't believe we can hold others morally culpable. However we can hold ourselves culpable. If someone chose not to intervene but you also chose not to step in, you can't hold the other person culpable for something you chose to do as well. On the contrary, if you decide to act, there is no reason to hold anyone culpable because you are taking action.

Could you give an situation demonstrating what would be considered a significant risk?

For example, if you believe that racial profiling is a huge problem but you live in an all-white community with an active Klan, you risk getting killed if you speak out.

So you don't believe an individual is morally culpable if they were to ignore someone who is about to be shot? You wouldn't hold it against them since they have a differing opinion of injustice? I personally don't disagree.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the situation. If someone had prior knowledge that someone was going to commit murder and was able to stop them but chose not to, I would hold them culpable. However if someone was fearful that they would be personally injured for speaking out, I wouldn't hold them culpable.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 9:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.


There are a few Principles that impact my view on this.

1: Justice

My favorite definition of Justice comes from BSH1. He defines justice as "Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due." (1)

It then follows that injustice is the inverse.

2: What Ought to be done "in the face of injustice."/ Ought implies can.

It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. . If obligations were not achievable, agents would waste resources attempting to meet the burden imposed on them. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed." (2)

So with this understanding of ideas I would respond as follows.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?

Yes, in the event of injustice intervention by capable moral agents is warranted.

Does injustice always warrant intervention?

No, if there are not the means or ability to intervene intervention is not warranted.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?

I don"t think it is the amount of injustice, rather the ability of who could intervene.

(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

I haven't been able to find very many debates done on this topic, despite it being such a debatable topic. That being the case, I may possibly do one in the future. So in preparation, I'd like to discuss it here and see what others think about this idea.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?
Does injustice always warrant intervention?
How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?
Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?
Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

I like to think we can find some middle ground most of us can agree on.

OJ Simpson stole the life of Fred Goldman's only son. And he got away with it.

No, there is nothing we can do on our own, unless we ourselves want to go to prison as well.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 3:56:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 9:24:31 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.


There are a few Principles that impact my view on this.

1: Justice

My favorite definition of Justice comes from BSH1. He defines justice as "Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due." (1)

It then follows that injustice is the inverse.

2: What Ought to be done "in the face of injustice."/ Ought implies can.

It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. . If obligations were not achievable, agents would waste resources attempting to meet the burden imposed on them. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed." (2)

So with this understanding of ideas I would respond as follows.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?

Yes, in the event of injustice intervention by capable moral agents is warranted.

Does injustice always warrant intervention?

No, if there are not the means or ability to intervene intervention is not warranted.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?

I don"t think it is the amount of injustice, rather the ability of who could intervene.


(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...

You focus on ability to intervene, but that seems like it could be difficult to assess on the spot.
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You focus on ability to intervene, but that seems like it could be difficult to assess on the spot.
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?

I concede that my thoughts on this appeal to the ideal not the practical. I would imagine that in the situation I probably would not do a cost benefit analysis as would be needed. I dont think any answer to the O.P. would sufficiently work in the case like you just gave.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

I haven't been able to find very many debates done on this topic, despite it being such a debatable topic. That being the case, I may possibly do one in the future. So in preparation, I'd like to discuss it here and see what others think about this idea.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?

Yes. If the injustice is perceived/observed to be repeated in the future and that it is preventable with reasonable intervention.

Does injustice always warrant intervention?

No. If the injustice is not repeatable and no following negative outcome results from it.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?

Enough to establish that it will occur again or otherwise have further negative effect in the future.

Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?

That's impossible to establish on a general basis. Essentially, the risk of greater loss appear greater than the chance of preventing it.

Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

I think so. If preventative action is at zero risk/cost, then inaction is along the lines of being equivalent to committing the injustice.

I like to think we can find some middle ground most of us can agree on.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:52:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 4:21:44 PM, kasmic wrote:
You focus on ability to intervene, but that seems like it could be difficult to assess on the spot.
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?

I concede that my thoughts on this appeal to the ideal not the practical. I would imagine that in the situation I probably would not do a cost benefit analysis as would be needed. I don't think any answer to the O.P. would sufficiently work in the case like you just gave.

Other then rejecting that inaction may never render one morally culpable, your probably right.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 4:33:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:
The full topic: Inaction in the face of Injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

I haven't been able to find very many debates done on this topic, despite it being such a debatable topic. That being the case, I may possibly do one in the future. So in preparation, I'd like to discuss it here and see what others think about this idea.

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?

Yes. If the injustice is perceived/observed to be repeated in the future and that it is preventable with reasonable intervention.

Could you give me an example what you consider is "reasonable intervention".

Does injustice always warrant intervention?

No. If the injustice is not repeatable and no following negative outcome results from it.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?

Enough to establish that it will occur again or otherwise have further negative effect in the future.

Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?

That's impossible to establish on a general basis. Essentially, the risk of greater loss appear greater than the chance of preventing it.

Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

I think so. If preventative action is at zero risk/cost, then inaction is along the lines of being equivalent to committing the injustice.

I like to think we can find some middle ground most of us can agree on.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?

Lets say the witness is a new born baby, entirely incapable of helping... of course a baby would not be morally culpable.

Lets say the witness is a 90 year old in a wheel chair, same thing.

What about a typical adult... That's where it becomes a question. But I think this illustrates the point I am making. If someone is to be morally culpable for inaction it must be clearly demonstrated that they were capable to a favorable degree. Thus the morality seems heavily linked to what one is capable of.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:05:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:03:22 PM, kasmic wrote:
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?

Lets say the witness is a new born baby, entirely incapable of helping... of course a baby would not be morally culpable.

Lets say the witness is a 90 year old in a wheel chair, same thing.

What about a typical adult... That's where it becomes a question. But I think this illustrates the point I am making. If someone is to be morally culpable for inaction it must be clearly demonstrated that they were capable to a favorable degree. Thus the morality seems heavily linked to what one is capable of.

If the witness is a cop and equipped trained and employed to intervene, then yeah... morally culpable for inaction.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:07:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 4:55:04 PM, Kozu wrote:
Could you give me an example what you consider is "reasonable intervention".

Reasonable: A sneaking thief is trying to steal an oblivious person's wallet. It is very reasonable to intervene, most easily by bringing attention to the act.

Unreasonable: Five armed men are violently mugging someone, and haven't noticed you nearby. It is very unreasonable for you (unarmed) to attempt to intervene.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:03:22 PM, kasmic wrote:
Say you see someone being robbed on the street at gun point. It's certainly not impossible to intervene, but there is a substantial risk. How would you view this situation and what would your action be?

Lets say the witness is a new born baby, entirely incapable of helping... of course a baby would not be morally culpable.

Lets say the witness is a 90 year old in a wheel chair, same thing.

What about a typical adult... That's where it becomes a question. But I think this illustrates the point I am making. If someone is to be morally culpable for inaction it must be clearly demonstrated that they were capable to a favorable degree. Thus the morality seems heavily linked to what one is capable of.

That seems reasonable.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:07:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/18/2015 4:55:04 PM, Kozu wrote:
Could you give me an example what you consider is "reasonable intervention".

Reasonable: A sneaking thief is trying to steal an oblivious person's wallet. It is very reasonable to intervene, most easily by bringing attention to the act.

Seems reasonable.

Unreasonable: Five armed men are violently mugging someone, and haven't noticed you nearby. It is very unreasonable for you (unarmed) to attempt to intervene.

What if there were only one or two?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:48:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:40:27 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/18/2015 5:07:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/18/2015 4:55:04 PM, Kozu wrote:
Could you give me an example what you consider is "reasonable intervention".

Reasonable: A sneaking thief is trying to steal an oblivious person's wallet. It is very reasonable to intervene, most easily by bringing attention to the act.

Seems reasonable.

Unreasonable: Five armed men are violently mugging someone, and haven't noticed you nearby. It is very unreasonable for you (unarmed) to attempt to intervene.

What if there were only one or two?

Too many factors to make a general assessment. Do I know how to fight? Can I ambush them? What are they armed with? Are there other people in screaming distance? Do I have somewhere to run in case I must (and can) flee? Will my intervening lead to both of us being killed rather then the victim just being greatly harmed? If so, will the muggers then totally get away with it just to do it again? It's all up to what's observed in the scenario.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:50:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:48:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/18/2015 5:40:27 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/18/2015 5:07:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/18/2015 4:55:04 PM, Kozu wrote:
Could you give me an example what you consider is "reasonable intervention".

Reasonable: A sneaking thief is trying to steal an oblivious person's wallet. It is very reasonable to intervene, most easily by bringing attention to the act.

Seems reasonable.

Unreasonable: Five armed men are violently mugging someone, and haven't noticed you nearby. It is very unreasonable for you (unarmed) to attempt to intervene.

What if there were only one or two?

Too many factors to make a general assessment. Do I know how to fight? Can I ambush them? What are they armed with? Are there other people in screaming distance? Do I have somewhere to run in case I must (and can) flee? Will my intervening lead to both of us being killed rather then the victim just being greatly harmed? If so, will the muggers then totally get away with it just to do it again? It's all up to what's observed in the scenario.

Ironically, I don't think I kept that in mind when I made this post lol.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:14:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?
Does injustice always warrant intervention?
How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?
Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?
Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

How would you answer these questions, out of curiosity?
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:41:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 6:14:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:55:57 PM, Kozu wrote:

Does injustice ever warrant intervention?

Ultimately, no. But since I like to cater to my conscious and intuition, I would when I can.

Does injustice always warrant intervention?

No.

How much injustice must take place before an individual acts?

I don't think it takes much, it just depends on the next question.

Whats the most risk an individual needs to face before being justified in their inaction?

Any amount of risk that may cause irreversible effects, or extremely difficult ones.

Is this even a problem considering your moral system?

Technically, no.

How would you answer these questions, out of curiosity?

I take back my last post. I was mostly curious just to see what everyone's thoughts were in general actually.