transition said:
you make a nice intellectual argument, it’s a good one, others agree.
intellectually downstream though, in the pond it’s just material for moron entertainment.
you’re part of a force that downstream lends to something nasty.
what do you do about that?
are you morally responsible for that?
Let’s do a paradigm shift here and look at the opposite situation. Than flip it back.
- Suppose I do something that hurts a lot of people (such as the Port Arthur massacre).
- This leads to a force downstream for good (the gun buyback scheme).
- Which in turn saves a lot of pain and suffering.
- So is the Port Arthur massacre a morally good thing, because it’s part of a force that downstream lends to something good?
I’d say “No”. And the same applies on the flip side to transition’s concerns. I can’t be held accountable.
Now let’s continue that with a case that is less black and white. The 1992 Los Angeles riots. “The unrest began in South Central Los Angeles on April 29, after a trial jury acquitted four officers of the Los Angeles Police Department for usage of excessive force in the arrest and beating of Rodney King, which had been videotaped and widely viewed in TV broadcasts. The rioting spread throughout the Los Angeles (etc.) This led to 63 deaths and 12,111 arrests.” Is the trial jury, or are other people in the courtroom, morally responsible for the deaths and destruction in the riots?
Again, I’d say “No”, the real culprits are the TV broadcasters, who deliberately fermented the anger that fuelled the riots. Others might disagree with me here.