Where does the blame lie?

[Illuminattile]

If someone blows up a bus full of innocent people because he's been taught by an extremist preacher that it's his duty and the only way to protect his people or his culture or his religion, where does the majority of the blame lie? Is it with the person planting the bomb on the bus, or the person planting the ideas in his head?

Whose fault is it that the people on the bus are dead? If I've been taught that blowing up innocent people on a bus is 'righteous' and praiseworthy, can you really blame me for doing it? You might think I should know better than to do it, but why?

 

[PuffnScruff]

i think it is hard to put the blame at just one person. there would be plenty of blame to go around from you to the preacher.

on one hand it is your fault for killing those people and listening to extreme ideas with out questioning them. it would be your fault for excepting these extreme ideas and not learning the truth of your religion.

there would also be blame on the preacher of the extreme ideas. maybe this person should have the most blame since they are the ones preaching their hate toward weak minded people and using those people as their pawns.

"If I've been taught that blowing up innocent people on a bus is 'righteous' and praiseworthy, can you really blame me for doing it?"

of course. you and only you are responsible for your own actions. if you kill innocent people because you believe extreme ideas that dont belong in a civilized society that is your own fault. if you believe extreme ideas being preached to you that is your own fault for being weak.

just because you may have the freedom to believe what you want doesn't make you or your ideas right.

 

[S O F I]

It's the age old question. Is it the wicked leaders that lead followers into slaughter, or is it the innocent people that follow with their own heart?

 

[Rukas]

I think both are to blame, it's the old "if someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" thing. In that regard, the person should be to blame for the action because he/she isnt physically being forced to do anything.

At the same time obviously the "preacher" should be blamed, because in effect, they are pulling the puppet's strings and thus are responsible.

However, I think on a wider scale, a community, society and culture that allows and encourages the cultivation of such weak minded individuals as well as opportunists needs to be, at least in some way, "blamed."

I know my opinion isn't liked by a lot of people here, but when you teach someone that something is fact all of their lives, then a system of belief and faith becomes a system of programming and other "facts" can easily be planted into peoples minds.

We have people here arguing the most minute trivial points to death, that they are truth and fact, when they are clearly (to anyone outside of that belief system) not. I shudder to think what this sort of blind faith and social programming would lead to if the same "this is the only way" method was applied to violent actions; when people are made to believe murder is good and the answer.

When a disease outbreaks, who is really to blame for it's spread?The virus? The sick people? Or the environment they live in that cultivates and feeds the spread?

 

[Amara]

I think of it like incitement in the sense that whilst it is not the immediate cause, it is nonetheless so distinctly connected that it be deemed a form of crime itself. Is it as morally reprehensible as the act itself? Near to it as far as I am concerned.

In any case, there is no legitimate teaching of any such acts of violence. Therefore, we can objectively condemn and blame those that do and those that incite. It comes down to human rights. The only thing is how does that sit when compared to war and the reasons we would give for it? How would you ever legitimise the use of force or any other act of violence, even if only reactionary? You can’t. How could you ever find an objective good upon which to draw a line between what is accepted and what is not? Maybe that is all that is certain - distinguishing objective good and evil is near impossible.

 

[Illuminattile]

I think of it like incitement in the sense that whilst it is not the immediate cause, it is nonetheless so distinctly connected that it be deemed a form of crime itself. Is it as morally reprehensible as the act itself? Near to it as far as I am concerned.

In any case, there is no legitimate teaching of any such acts of violence. Therefore, we can objectively condemn and blame those that do and those that incite. It comes down to human rights. The only thing is how does that sit when compared to war and the reasons we would give for it? How would you ever legitimise the use of force or any other act of violence, even if only reactionary? You can’t. How could you ever find an objective good upon which to draw a line between what is accepted and what is not? Maybe that is all that is certain - distinguishing objective good and evil is near impossible.

I can't take you serious with that avatar

 

[Khaled]

If someone blows up a bus full of innocent people because he's been taught by an extremist preacher that it's his duty and the only way to protect his people or his culture or his religion, where does the majority of the blame lie? Is it with the person planting the bomb on the bus, or the person planting the ideas in his head?

i think it's very difficult for an extremist preacher to plant this idea in ones head. No one blows a bus full of innocent people because he thinks it's the righteous thing to do.

people do this kind of thing because they see themselves in a state of war. Even if there's no army.
It's a known fact (even in the most "civilized" countries) that a lot of innocent people die in times of war. You only need to convince people that the war you are fighting is righteous.

 

[Sebastian]

"If I've been taught that blowing up innocent people on a bus is 'righteous' and praiseworthy, can you really blame me for doing it?"

of course. you and only you are responsible for your own actions. if you kill innocent people because you believe extreme ideas that dont belong in a civilized society that is your own fault. if you believe extreme ideas being preached to you that is your own fault for being weak.

what if you grow up in an "extremist family" (sorry, dumb word but you know what i mean) and from the day you were born your parents, sisters, your whole community tell you blowing up a bus is righteous?

we, who grew up in a civilized world have the opportunity to see things form a different perspective. but i think some people are the prisoner of their own environment and never have the chance to listen to other opinions or even do some research on their own.

in this case the majority of the responsibility lies with someone else.

 

[Amara]

we, who grew up in a civilized world have the opportunity to see things form a different perspective.

What is so civilized about it? We pursue our own senseless goals in a similar way. We adhere to values and goals laid upon us by our governments, our religions and our society, isnt that the same? Often those goals are coupled with greed, ignorance, close-mindedness and general dysfunction. The "civilized world" is often more uncivilized - reminds me of that Arrested Development song.. Mr Wendal, lol. Do we ever listen to the "other perspective" or are we quick to presume that we know a better way?

 

[Sebastian]

when i said "civilized world" i meant a place (only speaking for germany) without terror and war. a place where you can grow up in freedom and peace. not being involved in war/terror kinda gives you the opportunity to things from a more objective point of view.

i still dont think i explained it well but ok...

 

[Amara]

when i said "civilized world" i meant a place (only speaking for germany) without terror and war. a place where you can grow up in freedom and peace. not being involved in war/terror kinda gives you the opportunity to things from a more objective point of view.

i still dont think i explained it well but ok...

Then 'civilized' is really only based on time and experience. Germany has had more than it's share of war and terror. Perhaps it's hindsight that is the key. Even still is growing up in a capitalistic society where we are faced with the pressure to conform and succeed any more civilised when often we ignore what is going on around us, such as poverty and the devastation of the environment, the spread of HIV. The world isnt civilised. But in some self righteous way we believe we (in the 'west') are and that others arent, like we know something 'more right' and 'more good' than they but its just not true. Again, it's just subjective. We may only believe we live in a state of freedom and peace but we, like them are so involved in our environment that we dont see any bigger picture or objective overview.

 

[Khaled]

when i said "civilized world" i meant a place (only speaking for germany) without terror and war. a place where you can grow up in freedom and peace. not being involved in war/terror kinda gives you the opportunity to things from a more objective point of view.

i still dont think i explained it well but ok...

i think it's actually the opposite. If you ve never seen or experienced terrorists acts, then it's hard for you to understand the mentality behind it. That makes you very subjective


imho