ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Lets try this; "guilt" is not a mythical metaphysical entity that lives somewhere out there in the aether, and then chooses to swoop down on some individual or group of individuals. Guilt is something that we assign to people, or people assign to themselves, based on the current set of norms, morals, laws and traditions that controls that society.
In our western society, in our legal tradition, in our morals and in our religious faith, we do not accept collective guilt. We have decided that we are all individuals, and we are individuals with a free will. That means that each and everyone of us must be judged based upon our own actions, not the actions or inactions of someone else who happen to share our ethnicity, nationality, workplace or whatever. We do not accept collective guilt, because it goes directly against our basic idea that all men are individuals, created equal and with a free will.
HOWEVER. This state of affairs will only continue as long as we; in our western society, in our legal tradition, in our morals and in our religious faith continue to believe that all men are free, equal and individuals. If we were to adopt some other set of morals, like the sharia-sytem for example, then we would change, our morals, norms, laws and beliefs would change, and in some nightmarish future, we might come to the conclusion that individuals are not free, have no free will and therefore guilt could be collective.
That means that guilt is always individual and never collective, as long as we decide it is so. and I for one will never accept the notion that guilt can be collective, it goes against everything that I hold true, and it goes against all the values that make us free.
Collective guilt is a major component of many's religion, even in Western society. You
have to concede that. But you won't.
However, even in Western legal traditions there are components of collective guilt.
Recently we had a football star murdered in his home in Miami. Four people broke in. One person fired a gun and killed him. Four people are charged with his murder. They were all guilty of a crime, true - but only one committed murder. Charging them all with murder is an example of "collective guilt" in the legal process.*
I can fully understand why you are "anti" collective guilt. However, not even entertaining "the notion" that guilt can be collective just seems closed-minded to me. I don't see the notion as any kind of threat to our freedoms. Especially since it's already amongst us and by closing our eyes to it, we can only make its practice that much more a threat.
Not really. I call doggie a racist because he thinks all japanese were stinking savages who deserved to be butchered.
I've yet to hear Doggie say that
all Japanese deserved to be butchered. That's a fabrication of yours. He also was clearly referring to the Japanese Army when he called them stinking savages, which is also not all Japanese. You're a lawyer. You know you could easily defend Doggie against your claim above.
Also, if you can be a reformed racist, like certain politicians we have over here, why is making racist comments about historical groups even an issue? If I make the statement that "all Carthaginians were stinking savages and deserved to be butchered", does that make me a racist? I've never met a Carthaginian and I wish them no harm. They aren't even around anymore as far as I know. It seems to me that racism needs to be current - at least to get outraged about it. Doggie hasn't said anything negative about the modern Japanese people. As for myself - I admire modern Japan. Even though they seem somewhat alien to me, we also have much in common.
edit -
*Details of the story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_ ... ylor_slain
Wardlow's attorney, David Brener, distanced his client's actions from those of Rivera and said he expected to go to trial.
"I believe that the acts of Mr. Rivera, who was the shooter of this case, constitute an independent act," Brener said Wednesday. "My client never contemplated that Mr. Rivera was going to arm himself or use lethal force against Mr. Taylor."
Smith said the defense attorneys in the case have a history of working together, but he said he understood the grand jury's identification of his client as the alleged gunman puts him in a unique position.
"The other boys may be in a position to separate themselves somewhat from our client," he said. "However, under the felony murder rule, if it can be shown that they're involved in it, if they're involved in the burglary, then it's not a defense that they were not the one that pulled the trigger."
How come David Brener didn't just claim that "there is no collective guilt, only individual"?
Collective guilt appears to be alive and well in our legal system (for better or worse).
