Responsibility

[JetLeg]

Lets think of two children, born in muslim families. One is of ordinary intelligence, the other is extremely intelligent. Both are brainwashed, to believe that if they kill jewish infidels they will receive virgins in heaven. For the sake of the hypo, lets add, that they both are taught that they will burn in hell, unless they do it. The brainwashing is very strong, believed by all the community, they don't have exposure to the web and other opinions at all.

They are taught this from early infancy. The normal intelligence one buys into it, and kills people, being sentenced to prison afterwards (he does not commit suicidal bombing, just killing). The other one doesn't buy this crap, moves to america, and becomes secular.


To the question :


The idea that people are held responsible for their actions is based upon their ability to choose action x, and not action y.


In this case, it is hard to say in which sense the person with normal intelligence can choose the "good way", because he is lacking intelligence for it, and I don't think one can choose his intelligence. So in what sense can he be held responsible?

Also, we judge people certain people to be better than others, while we assume that they "chose action x over action y", but the more intelligent one did not choose to be more intelligent, so it is not clear how can he judged to be better.

So, our normal ideas of responsibility seem not to fit well to this case.

What do you think? (Was it clear enough?)

By the way, if there are any objectivists here, I am interested in the objectivist point of view.

[Yiab]

I can't speak for the objectivists, but here's my opinion on the subject:

The one of moderate intelligence is not responsible, ultimately, for his choice of actions. Unfortunately, no human justice system can read a person's mental capabilities (yet) and so cannot distinguish between someone who could not conceive of an alternative and someone who chose to do wrong anyway, so such systems must act primarily on actions and not on intelligence. Additionally, even if it were determinable that this individual could not conceive of the alternative it is still worth holding him against his will for "deprogramming" (or something else of a rehabilitatory nature).

[JetLeg]

I can't speak for the objectivists, but here's my opinion on the subject:

The one of moderate intelligence is not responsible, ultimately, for his choice of actions. Unfortunately, no human justice system can read a person's mental capabilities (yet) and so cannot distinguish between someone who could not conceive of an alternative and someone who chose to do wrong anyway, so such systems must act primarily on actions and not on intelligence. Additionally, even if it were determinable that this individual could not conceive of the alternative it is still worth holding him against his will for "deprogramming" (or something else of a rehabilitatory nature).

So, most of the suicide bombers are not ultimately responsible, though should be punished by the juridicial system?

[Yiab]

So, most of the suicide bombers are not ultimately responsible, though should be punished by the juridicial system?

Right. In so much as a person's identity can be separated cleanly from their experiences.

[fagin]

Rubbish. Anyone committing a crime, with the capacity to understand what they are doing, and making conscious decision to do it, should be judged accordingly.
Anything else is a cop out.
We have become far too ready to make excuses for people based on circumstance.
Politically correct nonsense.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, most of the suicide bombers are not ultimately responsible, though should be punished by the juridicial system?
I don't think we should punish suicide bombers.

[kmortis]

I don't think we should punish suicide bombers.
Well, maybe not all of them. Just the bits we can find.

[Robin]

Lets think of two children, born in muslim families. One is of ordinary intelligence, the other is extremely intelligent. Both are brainwashed, to believe that if they kill jewish infidels they will receive virgins in heaven. For the sake of the hypo, lets add, that they both are taught that they will burn in hell, unless they do it. The brainwashing is very strong, believed by all the community, they don't have exposure to the web and other opinions at all.

They are taught this from early infancy. The normal intelligence one buys into it, and kills people, being sentenced to prison afterwards (he does not commit suicidal bombing, just killing). The other one doesn't buy this crap, moves to america, and becomes secular.


To the question :


The idea that people are held responsible for their actions is based upon their ability to choose action x, and not action y.


In this case, it is hard to say in which sense the person with normal intelligence can choose the "good way", because he is lacking intelligence for it, and I don't think one can choose his intelligence. So in what sense can he be held responsible?

Also, we judge people certain people to be better than others, while we assume that they "chose action x over action y", but the more intelligent one did not choose to be more intelligent, so it is not clear how can he judged to be better.

So, our normal ideas of responsibility seem not to fit well to this case.

What do you think? (Was it clear enough?)

By the way, if there are any objectivists here, I am interested in the objectivist point of view.
I am not sure what intelligence has to do with it, the Glasgow bombers were doctors.

But yes, I would definitely hold them responsible, even the least intelligent person is capable of judging a wrong action from a right one.

Even if they completely believed the indoctrination then basically they were seeking personal advantage (eternal reward) from the killing of others.

They didn't believe they were doing a good act, they believed they were acting in self interest.

[Apology]

Well, maybe not all of them. Just the bits we can find.

We could gather the bits together and strain them through a REALLY HOT SIEVE of punishment.

[Cello Man]

I don't think we should punish suicide bombers.

:wackybiglaugh: Nominated for Pith. Good show, sir.

[six7s]

I don't think we should punish suicide bombers.
Well, maybe not all of them. Just the bits we can find.

Might making issuing a writ of habeas corpus a tad protracted

[Roboramma]

I am not sure what intelligence has to do with it, the Glasgow bombers were doctors.

But yes, I would definitely hold them responsible, even the least intelligent person is capable of judging a wrong action from a right one.

Even if they completely believed the indoctrination then basically they were seeking personal advantage (eternal reward) from the killing of others.

They didn't believe they were doing a good act, they believed they were acting in self interest.
But if they believe that what god wants is good, and they believe that god wanted them to do those which (which is why, after all, they'll be rewarded for it), then they clearly think that their actions were good.

The problem with this is I don't care, and I don't see why we should. Maybe we can feel sympathy for them. I certainly feel that to be a suicide bomber one needs tremendous courage. But that doesn't mean that their actions shouldn't be punished. Or at least, regarding MdC's post, those who make the attempt and fail should be punished.

[six7s]

I certainly feel that to be a suicide bomber one needs tremendous courage

My feelings are much less charitable

I think that the most significant emotion involved in a decision to become a suidcide bomber is xenophobia; a fear bred of ignorance, which manifests itself in repugnant delusions of a 'higher calling'

'Courage' is a word I'll reserve for benevolent endeavours

But that doesn't mean that their actions shouldn't be punished

Punishing the idiots that aid and abet such violence would be worthwhile if it serves as a deterrant... but that's an area I won't venture an opinion on, simply because - other than education - I have no idea how to deter such idiotic acts of selfishness