Comments on: Some links

By: N.I.B.

N.I.B. — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:53:00 +0000

Poor john b - so angry, so envious, so useless.

It's handbags at dawn round here lately, isn't it?

By: Dutch

Dutch — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:24:00 +0000

The words "not necessarily", which he himself also described as essential, makes the whole argument moot.
That is, someone makes an argument and concludes "moral responsible", and Mister N. sez "not necessarily so". Why? because, well generally speaking it is not always so. But in this specific case? Wel generally it isn't always so. Interesting. So what about the argument in this case? Etc.

But he tries to pass it of as an argument against those who hold Blair responsible for wrongheaded policies.

Besides, theres just few that say Blair is "morally responsible" for the London terror. Most keep it at the fact that the Iraq war caused an increased risk of terror.

By: siaw

siaw — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:02:00 +0000

"… instead of something interesting from the UK blogworld?
": Such as what, for instance? One of your posts?
Poor john b – so angry, so envious, so useless.

By: David

David — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:52:00 +0000

The question is, why should it be "the fact of central interest" to you? Was it a central motivation for the atrocity, or a peripheral one? And how do you know?

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:09:00 +0000

Well I'm glad to observe at least that you and Norm both seem to accept that the war in Iraq did contribute causally to the London bombings. That is the fact of central interest to me. The rest is disingenuous word-play.

By: David

David — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:54:00 +0000

The above examples would be powerful proofs against an argument that states: "the fact that someone contributes causally to a crime shows that they are not morally responsible for that crime."

However, the fact the nobody is making such an argument (the words "not necessarily" are important to note), makes the examples both irrelevant and misleading.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:44:00 +0000

Must be comforting to the relatives of Derek Bentley

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:36:00 +0000

or "Dr Norm, I lied to a racist Neanderthal meathead that I'd spit-roast his wife with a black man, and he beat the living shit out of me. Is it my fault?"

Dr Norm: "No, not at all. Don't worry, the fact that something []contributes causally to a crime [] doesn't show that they [] are morally responsible for that crime!"

By: Dutch

Dutch — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:12:00 +0000

Prosecutor - "He handed him the gun and said 'shoot her'."

Norm to the rescue ! - "The fact that something []contributes causally to a crime [] doesn't show that they [] are morally responsible for that crime!"

And they all lived happily ever after...

By: David

David — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:51:00 +0000

From Norm's article:
The fact that something someone else does contributes causally to a crime or atrocity doesn't show that they, as well as the direct agents, are morally responsible for that crime or atrocity [...] even when what someone else has contributed causally to the occurrence of the criminal or atrocious act is wrong, this won't necessarily show they bear any of the blame for it.
Hackneyed it may be, but pram-toy-throwers are seldom so coolly logical.