Is Neutrality the same as Complicity?

[ObsidianJones]

What is "society" defined as? Is a monk, living in Japan, the part of the same society that killed Flynn? What about a Canadian? An Alaskan? Is there just one "human society", or does this refer to the United States and their territories?

Oddly enough, every part of society does have a play in other walks of life. For instance, if the US passed the actual Purge (and frankly, that outcome is looking more and more likely), and the nations of the world as one turned to us and asked to reconsider, the pressure would be enormous.

Likewise, if no society took child abuse as anything to abhor... well, it wouldn't be called abuse. It wouldn't be anything. But as most humans consider children sacred and worth dying over, child abuse is the most loathsome thing you can do the world over. And you will find no port of refuge during that storm.

Did that Japanese Monk vote for the politicians and sheriffs that made this nation's policing as it is? Obviously not. But when burdened with knowledge, that monk must make a choice to decry the injustice, be neutral to the injustice, or side with the injustice. And as previously stated, anything that doesn't bring condemnation and/or repercussions for certain actions will not cause change for the better. Decrying will be the only action that brings condemnation and/or repercussions. The others visit no negative outcome for said actions, therefore will do nothing to prevent them in the future.

 

[Houseman]

Decrying will be the only action that brings condemnation and/or repercussions. The others visit no negative outcome for said actions, therefore will do nothing to prevent them in the future.

We have two different scenarios being used as examples here. One is where a bully is doing harm. You mentioned that the bystanders have different options. They can run and get a teacher or physically intervene.

But here you say that one can decry the injustice. I see that as being markedly different than the other two options.

In the bystander/bully scenario, can one "decry the injustice" to avoid being complicit? Can a bystander say "no, stop, don't", so that they aren't silent, and thus, not complicit anymore, although they really didn't help?

Perhaps there's a difference between "silence" and "neutrality". You can say and spread your own morality and say that certain things are or aren't immoral without getting directly involved. Maybe that's neutrality, but not silence. Directly involving yourself would be neither silence nor neutrality. Doing neither would be silence and complicity.

How about that?

 

[CaitSeith]

Ah, nothing like taking a specific case and generalizing its argument until it becomes a rhetorical strawman...

It begs the question: why? Why do you put words on Sony's mouth?

 

[Houseman]

Why do you put words on Sony's mouth?

What words do you consider to have been put in Sony's mouth?

 

[ObsidianJones]

We have two different scenarios being used as examples here. One is where a bully is doing harm. You mentioned that the bystanders have different options. They can run and get a teacher or physically intervene.

But here you say that one can decry the injustice. I see that as being markedly different than the other two options.

In the bystander/bully scenario, can one "decry the injustice" to avoid being complicit? Can a bystander say "no, stop, don't", so that they aren't silent, and thus, not complicit anymore, although they really didn't help?

Perhaps there's a difference between "silence" and "neutrality". You can say and spread your own morality and say that certain things are or aren't immoral without getting directly involved. Maybe that's neutrality, but not silence. Directly involving yourself would be neither silence nor neutrality. Doing neither would be silence and complicity.

How about that?

How doesn't that help? It draws attention. It shows the bullies that they are being noticed and counted. That their actions aren't considered acceptable. Does it magically put a shield between the face of the victim and the bully? Possibly for a second. It might cause others to join you because they were too afraid of speaking out on their own.

And to the decry part, well, we've all been adults for a bit. We understand the difference between doing something to do it and intent behind the actions. If in said scenario, just walking by an event like this while saying "No, stop, don't" without even breaking your stride is tantamount to nothing. It's the definition of lip service.

If you said "no, stop, don't" and you're standing there with your knees knocking, but can't sit by... Yeah. You've done something. You're literally standing for your beliefs. Can you fight them off? Maybe not. Can you let the victim know that his plight is being viewed? That others know this isn't just and are willing to try to do anything? You bet your life.

I argue your last point is akin to mine. If your mindset are these things are clearly wrong and you state as such, that's literally all anyone can ask from you. As much as I'd might want to jump in the Protest, championing my thoughts and my feelings, I can look at you and see that you at least understand that what I'm protesting is unjust. That's all I would need.

The short of it is that if you have an opinion, you aren't neutral. You can state you don't want to get involved, but I'm only truly neutral about things I don't have an opinion about. The second I start developing thoughts of what something means to me or how I view it, I've left neutrality behind. Not wanting to get involved is not the same as having neutrality.

 

[CaitSeith]

What words do you consider to have been put in Sony's mouth?

Sorry, I jumped the gun here...

 

[lil devils x]

If The Escapist can say "within the bounds of our site, racism is not allowed", and not be considered to be 'silent' or 'complicit', then can an individual say "within my house racism is not allowed" and be similarly let off the hook? Is that all it takes?

But that isn't all they have done. Aside from personally calling out racism and letting their viewpoint on it be known, they have provided content that also called out and addressed racism in media as well, for example I remember this article off the top of my head but I am sure there were others :

The Sucker Was Racist, Simple and Plain - The Escapist

www.escapistmagazine.com

The point is Escapist is about discussing games and movies so them hosting content that addresses racism in movies and games is doing their part in their corner to help address the cultural aspects of the issues from a different angle. They have not been silent or complicit because they have actually addressed it in media and take an active role to eliminate it where they have control to do so.

 

[Dreiko]

I think oftentimes issues of complicity come with a desire to be judgemental towards someone. Being neutral means you have no feelings about some thing one way or the other which causes people who think you should be against something to group you with people who are for that evil thing whatever it is.

Judging someone neutral as complicit is a tool used to guilt or pressure people into not being neutral any more. You can use sophistry to find complicity in anyone by twisted logic. I generally am not concerned with what people think or feel, only what they do. So as long as someone isn't directly doing this bad thing, even if he feels neutrally about it, I am not interested in judging them.


Just because someone feels that someone else has to speak up in a situation, that doesn't mean that they factually have to speak up. That's just the former person's opinion.

 

[Kwak]

Is the 'neutrality' truly neutral, as in defined and stated, or just an unknown schrodinger-like state where no position has been taken?
ETA
And complicity is defined as a being involved in the action; by being the passive backdrop environment for the action to take place in, yes, we're all kind of complicit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Likewise, if no society took child abuse as anything to abhor... well, it wouldn't be called abuse. It wouldn't be anything. But as most humans consider children sacred and worth dying over, child abuse is the most loathsome thing you can do the world over. And you will find no port of refuge during that storm.

Child abuse sure, because the word "abuse" itself means doing wrong. But what constitutes child abuse varies a lot, plenty of places are ok with what would be called child abuse by others.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Child abuse sure, because the word "abuse" itself means doing wrong. But what constitutes child abuse varies a lot, plenty of places are ok with what would be called child abuse by others.

To further that. What is considered abuse now may have been what saved the life of a child hundreds of years ago. We don't think about all the safety nets we have for kids in today's world and what technology is needed to have these things. Children will do stupid things but the consequences of them mean far more in older times than now. Following what your elders say means much more when death comes so much easier. I'd personally like to think I wouldn't do such a thing if I was in that situation but then again, I was born in a first world country in modern day.

 

[Satinavian]

Oddly enough, every part of society does have a play in other walks of life. For instance, if the US passed the actual Purge (and frankly, that outcome is looking more and more likely), and the nations of the world as one turned to us and asked to reconsider, the pressure would be enormous.

The world can't even get Israel to give up on the settlements which are clearly in violation to various UN resolutions. Couldn't even do so under Obama.

There is basically no chance of pressuring the US, the most powerful nation ever, center of the world economy, possessor or a veto in the UN security council and of a military half as strong as the whole rest of the world combined, to make any significant changes. Not even if we get Trump as president for life next and the powers to appoint gouverners directy. Not even if he actually deploys the military to fight blacks and democrats.

Sorting out the problems in the US can only be done by the US population. Al least until it has completely lost its superpower status.

 

[MrCalavera]

In Common Law, there was no duty to aid. 2 pieces of land are separated by a river. Guy on land A sees guy on land B fall into the river and does absolutely nothing. Guy A drowns and dies while Guy B looks on. Under the law, he is within his rights.

That exempt shows that Common Law is often terrible, but it does provide an example on why neutrality might sometimes equal as culpability.

Limiting the above scenario to three possible outcomes, for simplicity's sake, the onlooker can:
1)Do nothing
2)Jump into the river and save the drowner personally
3)Do anything else than point 2) to help, i.e. throw the drowner a line, or branch, alert other people etc.

While the 2nd example, if succesful, seems to be the most helpful, it comes with few addendums. It's only advised if no one's around AND the onlooker is a good swimmer/professional rescuer - they risk drowning themselves, and the golden rule that comes with helping anyone is ensuring your own safety first.
Third example is what anyone can do, so there's really no excuse, when there's someone else's life at stake.
First one is the "truly" neutral position, but at the same contributing to harm that could be easily averted.

Now 2nd example contains variable that cause people remain neutral in most cases - personal risk. It of course varies from situation to situation, and no, i don't consider someone being mean to you on the internet as a real risk.

 

[gorfias]

That exempt shows that Common Law is often terrible, but it does provide an example on why neutrality might sometimes equal as culpability.

Limiting the above scenario to three possible outcomes, for simplicity's sake, the onlooker can:
1)Do nothing
2)Jump into the river and save the drowner personally
3)Do anything else than point 2) to help, i.e. throw the drowner a line, or branch, alert other people etc.

While the 2nd example, if succesful, seems to be the most helpful, it comes with few addendums. It's only advised if no one's around AND the onlooker is a good swimmer/professional rescuer - they risk drowning themselves, and the golden rule that comes with helping anyone is ensuring your own safety first.
Third example is what anyone can do, so there's really no excuse, when there's someone else's life at stake.
First one is the "truly" neutral position, but at the same contributing to harm that could be easily averted.

Now 2nd example contains variable that cause people remain neutral in most cases - personal risk. It of course varies from situation to situation, and no, i don't consider someone being mean to you on the internet as a real risk.

We discussed earlier in this thread the reality that some jurisdictions are dickering around making changes to common law and creating duties to act and my question is what would ever be enough? That someone is poor and another is rich: is the rich person obliged to transfer wealth to the poor until they are both "equal"? Duty to invite the homeless into your home? Forgo sending your kid to college because someone in the city needs surgery?

I am not writing a duty to aid on its face is a bad idea. But common law comes from a long history of trial and error. It's been said there are no good new ideas as someone smarter than "you" would have thought of it already. We'll just have to see where this all goes.

 

[Satinavian]

We discussed earlier in this thread the reality that some jurisdictions are dickering around making changes to common law and creating duties to act and my question is what would ever be enough? That someone is poor and another is rich: is the rich person obliged to transfer wealth to the poor until they are both "equal"? Duty to invite the homeless into your home? Forgo sending your kid to college because someone in the city needs surgery?

I am not writing a duty to aid on its face is a bad idea. But common law comes from a long history of trial and error. It's been said there are no good new ideas as someone smarter than "you" would have thought of it already. We'll just have to see where this all goes.

If you want to do something like that, you might look at those many many legal systems not based on common law where some obligation to help has already existed for quite some time.

Most of those systems have as long a history as common law and as many actual experiences.

Or you could stay in your anglocentric law bubble, refuse other peoples experiences and then use a lack of experience to justify sticking to tradition.

 

[gorfias]

If you want to do something like that, you might look at those many many legal systems not based on common law where some obligation to help has already existed for quite some time.

Most of those systems have as long a history as common law and as many actual experiences.

Or you could stay in your anglocentric law bubble, refuse other peoples experiences and then use a lack of experience to justify sticking to tradition.

How to pick and choose? The US has mostly a common law background (I think Louisiana is Civil Law). The ancient Japanese "right of cutting down", predates the USA. The right, in a caste system, to murder those of lower caste if they even mildly irk you. You think the USA needs that?

 

[Thaluikhain]

How to pick and choose? The US has mostly a common law background (I think Louisiana is Civil Law). The ancient Japanese "right of cutting down", predates the USA. The right, in a caste system, to murder those of lower caste if they even mildly irk you. You think the USA needs that?

I'm close to 100% sure that when Satinavian suggested looking at other legal systems, the intent wasn't to cherry pick obviously bad ideas that have existed in the past and implement them in the US.

 

[SupahEwok]

If you want to do something like that, you might look at those many many legal systems not based on common law where some obligation to help has already existed for quite some time.

Most of those systems have as long a history as common law and as many actual experiences.

Or you could stay in your anglocentric law bubble, refuse other peoples experiences and then use a lack of experience to justify sticking to tradition.

It really isn't as simple as that. Both common and civil law heavily relies on precedent to establish standards. The same law in civil law will not be the same law in common law. It's like having a different context.

I'm not informed on this particular kind of law, but I can see that "obligation to help" laws can easily become "punishment for messing up your required aid" laws. The typical case that I know of in the US is the opposite situation, so-called Good Samaritan laws which protect people who try to help in good faith and protect them if they fail, while not obligating them to make the attempt.

Edit: I don't like the idea of "required to aid" laws in general. It just seems unnecessary. Most people when presented with an emergency will either freeze up from the shock, or will move to help. The people who will intentionally turn their back, I don't think a law would change that. It just becomes one more thing the law can try to use to bludgeon you after the fact, rather than modifying any behavior during an emergency.

 

[Satinavian]

I'm not informed on this particular kind of law, but I can see that "obligation to help" laws can easily become "punishment for messing up your required aid" laws. The typical case that I know of in the US is the opposite situation, so-called Good Samaritan laws which protect people who try to help in good faith and protect them if they fail, while not obligating them to make the attempt.

Where i live, we have both a legal obligation to help and something like your Good Samaritan laws and it seems to be working fine. And mine is far from the only country doing so.
Now I am not a legal expert who can talk about the difficulties off porting stuff over to common law. But that is still not a reason to behave as if "obligation to help" laws were some kind of uncharted territory. If a common law country wants to implement it, it is easy to look at what worked elsewhere and what didn't.

There are enough ideas that got copied between Common law and Civil law traditions over the centuries. It happens all the time. It is even necessary for implementing rules for multinationals or transborder actions.

 

[gorfias]

I'm close to 100% sure that when Satinavian suggested looking at other legal systems, the intent wasn't to cherry pick obviously bad ideas that have existed in the past and implement them in the US.

Agree. My post means, go slow. That how one looks at how another culture does a thing to see what they would want to apply their own still comes from their own culture. Common Law is ancient, by modern values, brutal in places, but ultimately humanist. Sure, there are people that argue that Human Rights are a fraud perpetrated by Jews to empower them but I don't think so. Common Law matters to us. Ensuring we keep it in mind, I think, does not mean one lives in an, "anglocentric law bubble".

...I can see that "obligation to help" laws can easily become "punishment for messing up your required aid" laws. The typical case that I know of in the US is the opposite situation, so-called Good Samaritan laws which protect people who try to help in good faith and protect them if they fail, while not obligating them to make the attempt.

Edit: I don't like the idea of "required to aid" laws in general. It just seems unnecessary. Most people when presented with an emergency will either freeze up from the shock, or will move to help. The people who will intentionally turn their back, I don't think a law would change that. It just becomes one more thing the law can try to use to bludgeon you after the fact, rather than modifying any behavior during an emergency.

Interesting points. Guy A collapses. Guy B, a doctor, resuscitates him, breaking one of his ribs while doing so. He sues and wins stating he didn't ask for the aid. They've since come up with the "Volunteer Doctrine": a reasonable person would think Guy B presumes Guy A would want the help. Now, rib broken because the doctor messed up? Guy A would win that one. As for the people turning their back? I heard of a case: girl being raped in a public bathroom. The rapists pal stands outside knowing what is going on and does nothing to help. I assume it was determined that he was NOT an accomplice on the look out. If he was an accomplice, I don't think a law would help. If not, maybe? Kitty Genovese syndrome (Would help but assumes someone else is helping already).