Letters from Iwo Jima

[Dino]

Some snippets:


Collective guilt is the controversial collectivist idea

Advanced systems of criminal law accept the principle that guilt shall only be personal. This attitude is not usually shared by primitive systems of law.

The principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian social thinking.

Terrorism is commonly rationalized by its practitioners on ideas of collective guilt and responsibility.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Dino

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

Do we have a language problem?

No.

Collective guilt

PH hasn't simply argued that collective guilt is wrong, he went further and said it doesn't exist. "There is no collective guilt, only individual guilt". That's obviously false but it hasn't stopped him from repeating it. Even after acknowledging its existence on a couple of occasions in this thread. Hence the concern that something is being lost in translation.

He's more than entitled to think it wrong. I sure don't think collective guilt is "right" and in most cases I too think it wrong. However, I think it needs to looked at on a case by case basis because sometime it's necessary. And also because the number of people on the planet that think it is A-OK, outnumber the rest of us.

As for people that think it doesn't exist at all so far there's only one (for sure).

[martxyz]

ORIGINAL: Dino


Some snippets:


Collective guilt is the controversial collectivist idea

Advanced systems of criminal law accept the principle that guilt shall only be personal. This attitude is not usually shared by primitive systems of law.

The principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian social thinking.

Terrorism is commonly rationalized by its practitioners on ideas of collective guilt and responsibility.

Hi Dino,

I'm not making a counter point, and I'm also no lawyer. But isn't there a case for saying that if a large number of people benefit, even if they just haven't thought about the injustice of it (though they should have), from the behaviour of others, then they share some degree of culpability if they take no action. To try and drag this away from too much politics, then an example might be something like the benefits we get from cheap products which are made in sweatshops in poorer parts of the world.
You could make the argument a lot more political, and the argument for the notion of collective guilt (or at least blindness) would become stronger, but for the sake of a peaceful conversation, I am just raising a very general point.
I'm not seeking an argument which is why I have used an example about which we are nearly all aware, and mostly sympathetic, though we don't usually act on our knowledge.

[06 Maestro]

This thread quickly focused on how Japanese soldiers are portrayed in a new movie. On post # 23, it took a turn of equating U.S. personal and U.S. policies with those of Imperial Japan. This is what Americans find offensive, this is what America haters love to yap about, and this is what the young and uninitiated need to consider very thoroughly, using what you have between your ears, before making any profound judgment on the subject-or just going away mad.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Nanking Massacre..blah blah

Guilt is always individual, never collective. That is why we dont think of all Germans as concentration camp guards, all Americans as My Lai-murderers or all Japanese as Nanking massacrers. Im sure you understand this if you sit and think about it for a while.

You have no shame in mentioning My Lai in the same sentence as the Rape of Nanking? The level of the crime committed by the Japanese Army is 10,000 to 20,000 times more than My Lai. On one hand a green Lieutenant, the other, multiple Generals. On one hand, one was relieved of command, prosecuted, incarcerated and dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army, on the other, Generals went about their merry way for at least the duration of the war with the blessings of their higher command.

Once again, no one has said all Japanese were or are evil. No one has said that Americans are completely innocent of some war crimes, or that Americans are a bunch of angles. What is being being said is that the crimes committed by the U.S. pale in comparison to that of Imperial Japan, and the reason for that is that the Japanese had a very brutal government (and a slightly askew culture), whereas the U.S. had a government and culture that had considerably more respect for human life and rights.

The personnel insults also happened to begin with post #23.

[06 Maestro]

Dino

While I have to agree that each one of the statements are true, it is also true that there is a huge "however..." following each one.
The reality of the implementation of collective guilt is very real, which is not always a bad thing, nor a good thing, it's just a thing. Situations need to be addressed someway, even if the method is not perfect.

ORIGINAL: Dino


Some snippets:


Collective guilt is the controversial collectivist idea

Advanced systems of criminal law accept the principle that guilt shall only be personal. This attitude is not usually shared by primitive systems of law.

The principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian social thinking.

Terrorism is commonly rationalized by its practitioners on ideas of collective guilt and responsibility.

[Dino]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

PH hasn't simply argued that collective guilt is wrong, he went further and said it doesn't exist.

I don't take the words "Guilt is always individual, never collective." to mean that collective guilt does not exist as a concept...Surely, discussing the "rights" and "wrongs" of a nonexistent concept would be pointless.

Maybe it IS a language problem <shrug>.

He's more than entitled to think it wrong. I sure don't think collective guilt is "right" and in most cases I too think it wrong. However, I think it needs to looked at on a case by case basis because sometime it's necessary. And also because the number of people on the planet that think it is A-OK, outnumber the rest of us.

They do not concern me.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Mart



Hi Dino,

I'm not making a counter point, and I'm also no lawyer. But isn't there a case for saying that if a large number of people benefit, even if they just haven't thought about the injustice of it (though they should have), from the behaviour of others, then they share some degree of culpability if they take no action. To try and drag this away from too much politics, then an example might be something like the benefits we get from cheap products which are made in sweatshops in poorer parts of the world.
You could make the argument a lot more political, and the argument for the notion of collective guilt (or at least blindness) would become stronger, but for the sake of a peaceful conversation, I am just raising a very general point.
I'm not seeking an argument which is why I have used an example about which we are nearly all aware, and mostly sympathetic, though we don't usually act on our knowledge.

Very good point. The feeling of guilt is there for some of us. We are supporting a crime.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Dino

He's more than entitled to think it wrong. I sure don't think collective guilt is "right" and in most cases I too think it wrong. However, I think it needs to looked at on a case by case basis because sometime it's necessary. And also because the number of people on the planet that think it is A-OK, outnumber the rest of us.

They do not concern me.

Not everyone has the same luxury or is willing to make the same choice.

It's pretty simple for me. For example, if I harm your family then I've just put my own family in jeopardy. Clearly it would be "wrong" but right & wrong might no longer be a consideration for you. If you choose the high road, then good for you (and lucky for my family). But if you don't, I've brought it down on myself. That's true justice. Something that is not usually found in our legal system. As a Christian I believe in mercy over justice. However, I don't believe it would be right of me to impose that belief on others. People have a right to justice. That's why forgiveness is so exceptional.

You can say that's barbaric and it's that sort of thinking that leads to wars. That may all be true but it's also (mostly) the world we live in. People that proclaim "there is no collective guilt" have likely never been tested. If they have, their belief in such is all the more commendable. They still have no right to impose their belief system on those that think differently IMO.

[Dino]

To try and drag this away from too much politics, then an example might be something like the benefits we get from cheap products which are made in sweatshops in poorer parts of the world.

How do you determine a "guilty group" here? If I'm using these product, then it's my own guilt...Are you using those products, too? - Join the group...Eventually we'll have a group of people using the sweatshop products whose guilt was determined on individual basis.

I don't see that as an example of collective guilt...

To put it into perspective of our previous discussion: All Japanese that committed atrocities CAN be grouped together and labeled "murderous thugs"...I don't see any problem there.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Dino

To put it into perspective of our previous discussion: All Japanese that committed atrocities CAN be grouped together and labeled "murderous thugs"...I don't see any problem there.

OK, good. Now what about military units that are known to have "murderous thugs" in its ranks, or even as its commander? The unit might just be a regiment, maybe a division, maybe more. Every man in such a unit is surely not a monster, but when you are engaged in a battle to the death with such units, how are you suppose to go about treating them in a different/individual way, or refering to said military units after the fact?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Dino

To try and drag this away from too much politics, then an example might be something like the benefits we get from cheap products which are made in sweatshops in poorer parts of the world.

How do you determine a "guilty group" here? If I'm using these product, then it's my own guilt...Are you using those products, too? - Join the group...Eventually we'll have a group of people using the sweatshop products whose guilt was determined on individual basis.

I don't see that as an example of collective guilt...

To put it into perspective of our previous discussion: All Japanese that committed atrocities CAN be grouped together and labeled "murderous thugs"...I don't see any problem there.

I believe the argument would be that your nation which didn't ban and/or heavily tariff/restrict the importation of products made in such a way, would put all citizens of your nation in the collective guilt department even though it was individuals who bought the cheaply made products.

[morvwilson]

I think that maybe the sweatshop example may not be the best for demonstrating guilt by association.

Perhaps we could look at the example of Sir Thomas Moore. During the reign of King Henry VIII of England, the King dumped whoever his current queen was and married Ann Bolin. Sir Thomas Moore did not back the marriage but said nothing about it. Parliment was forced by law to interpret his silence as acceptance of the marriage.

Comming from the other side, in a hypothetical situation, lets say that Dino gives me a ride to a convience store. I go in, shoot the clerk, steal the money and flee. If dino does not report the crime, he could be charged with man slaughter and accessory to armed robery.

Now, granted I am not a trained attourney, but how would this fit in with the idea of collective guilt/individual guilt?
Does it make it all individual guilt so collective does not exist?
Or, do I have something wrong?

[Dino]

It's pretty simple for me. For example, if I harm your family then I've just put my own family in jeopardy. Clearly it would be "wrong" but right & wrong might no longer be a consideration for you.

Yes...I might commit a crime in affect, but it would still be a crime.

If you choose the high road, then good for you (and lucky for my family). But if you don't, I've brought it down on myself. That's true justice.

Harming innocents is a true justice? Never.

They still have no right to impose their belief system on those that think differently IMO.

I'm not "imposing" my beliefs on anyone....At most, I'm asking them to reconsider.

[Dino]

If dino does not report the crime, he could be charged with man slaughter and accessory to armed robery.

If Dino was aware of the crime and didn't report it, than HE is guilty...Hi's wife and child are not.

This is getting to legal for me and I'm no attorney either...Just chalk me up as a libertarian. [:)]

The principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian social thinking.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Dino

If dino does not report the crime, he could be charged with man slaughter and accessory to armed robery.

If Dino was aware of the crime and didn't report it, than HE is guilty...Hi's wife and child are not.

This is getting to legal for me and I'm no attorney either...Just chalk me up as a libertarian. [:)]

The principle of collective guilt is totally denounced in libertarian social thinking.

Don't worry about the lack of legal training Dino. Sometimes I think that too much legal training tends to warp the your ability to think logicly and impair your judgement![8D]

Also, I agree your wife would not be guilty even tho she would still pay a price.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Dino

Harming innocents is a true justice? Never.

I take your family and you take mine. That's justice. However, you've identified the big downside - innocents pay the price for my bad behavior.

Many have moved beyond "an eye for an eye" for something I personally think is better. However, it's still the norm for most of the planet. And if I'm responsible for the well-being of a group of people, I will not put them in jeopardy for my own spiritual beliefs. I would be obligated to respond in kind should they be threatened by those that are still "old school".

To put it another way, on personal level I believe in the golden rule. "Treat others as you would have them treat you". Nations OTOH don't generally have that luxury. They usually have no choice but to treat others as they actually treat them. For example: Japan didn't sign or abide by the Geneva Conventions and consequently they shouldn't have been afforded its protections. Any treaty that would require my country to continue following the rules when others totally ignore them should never be ratified IMO.

I'm not "imposing" my beliefs on anyone....At most, I'm asking them to reconsider.

I didn't aim that at you specifically.

I was talking about a person that refuses to acknowledge collective guilt exists and is unwilling to even consider a different viewpoint.

[Doggie]

freder

I'm Dutch you know, it's about a 1/20 the size of Texas. Just a little man from a little country: what do you care, Big Americano?

I figure I got a stake in Holland given the thousands of Americans who earned little plots of dirt in your little country. You're welcome.

it doesn't affect my life and I'm not a jealous guy.

Doesn't seem that way. Seems you would have prefered to be part of a bigger country called Fortress Europe. I guess it takes generations to get over your grand mama having her head shaved back in the winter of '44, huh?

[Dixie]

For example: Japan didn't sign or abide by the Geneva Conventions and consequently they shouldn't have been afforded its protections.

You're forgetting that as the goodies we have to play by the rules [:-]

Even if the other side aren't. Or when they aren't even playing the same game [8|]

[Doggie]

"Panzerjaeger" :


No, there we learned lots of other stuff, you know...like laws and stuff.

You must have been at the free clinic the day they covered arguing your case with facts, logic and reason. So far, all we got is "you're a racist", "what about the indians", and "I went to law school".

First, "my case" is that racism is wrong, stereotyping is the tool of the stupid, and guilt is individual not collective. You have not even begun arguing "my case", instead you have been trying to deflect the discussion into Swedish behavior in ww2, what is a concentration camp, and generally call me names

Excuse me? I think I missed those points while you were rambling on about American internment camps, the Indian wars, My Lai, your law school, how the Swedes were superior to everyone else, and what ignorant, arrogant racist liars the Americans who fought the Japanese were.

No I havent, yes it is. For your argument to work, you would have to make the case that on a moral level, the female switchboard operator at the Reichstag is just as much to blame as the "soldier" in the einzatsgruppe who personally butchered tens of thousands of jews.

Hey, there was this soldier in the einsatzgruppe who adopted a puppy, and wrote home to his poor sick and shut in mother every week. He even tossed a crust of bread to some Jewish kid on a deportation train. I heard about him the same place you heard about all those kindly Japanese soldiers.

Some people loaded up the cattle cars; others only made sure they ran on time. Those people deserve a pass because they didn't personally get their hands dirty, huh?

Not to mention being lectured on ethics by a "lawyer".[8|] You know the difference between a whore and an attorney, "Panzerjaeger"? There's some things a whore won't do for money.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

For example: Japan didn't sign or abide by the Geneva Conventions and consequently they shouldn't have been afforded its protections.

You're forgetting that as the goodies we have to play by the rules [:-]

Even if the other side aren't. Or when they aren't even playing the same game [8|]

I disagree. I think we can still choose to abide but should no longer be obligated to do so. And the last people that get to complain about our choice are those that paid them no heed to begin with.

However, if beforehand we did agree to abide even if others don't - then yes we would have to be true to our word. It's just an agreement that IMO should not be made. I don't like one-sided contracts.