They started it
In part two: What happen? So, what happened to me last Friday? I was walking back from a local coffee establishment with some coworkers/friends when the conversation turned to responsibility. We were talking about something that had happened and the person who committed the deed was told to do it. The conversation was about whether the person who told someone to do something (we'll call him "Mr. Wordy") was responsible for the crime committed by the other person (we'll call him "Mr. Loser").
I was claiming that Mr. Wordy shouldn't be charged with anything since he didn't commit any crime. The other folks were claiming that Mr. Wordy should be penalized somewhat for his crimes - he should be held responsible for his actions. My counter was that he had no actions, only words - Mr. Loser is solely responsible for the crime and his actions.
Eventually it dawned on me. We were arguing different points. There was an underlying assumption on their part that Mr. Wordy had committed some crime by talking to Mr. Loser, and they were debating with me whether he should pay for his crime or not. My underlying assumption is that only people who take an action are responsible for that action - talking about something is not doing something.
When we got back to the office, I involved another person, asking her opinion on the guilt of Mr. Wordy. She fired back, "What about Hitler? He didn't do anything except talk." To which I agreed, Hitler was guilty of nothing as far as the conversation goes - for the words he spoke. He might have commit other crimes, but anything that happened in "his name" was solely the responsibility of those who took the actions.
What's the difference between Hitler and some homeless person on the street corner yelling his hate? Only that someone listened to Hitler and did what he said. So, Hitler is guilty because other people did something, but the homeless guy is guilty of nothing because no crimes were committed? If they both said the same thing, what is the difference? Other people's actions?
What if there was a program that generated random emails. Say it eventually sent one to someone and through random word choice it appeared to the receiver to contain a very compelling argument to commit some crime. And this person committed that crime, based solely on the email. Who is guilty? Don't we need the person with the thought to be guilty too? But there is no one else. The same with anyone - the words you speak to someone else have no meaning, save what the listen gives them.
If I describe a patentable idea to someone and they patent it to become rich and famous, can I then get money from them because it was my words that inspired them? No. It is the person who took action who is solely responsible, positive or negative.
This was my point. But, once I realized what they were really saying, I realized that my point didn't matter. And that was where it all happened - in that moment of realization of what they were saying really meant.
The Edward
4 comments:
If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, causing people to rush to the doors, resulting in injuries to some, are you saying that I am in no way responsible for any of the injuries?
Just because words are not tangible, it does not mean that they have no repercussions.
Okay, many levels here.
Hitler, Charles Manson (though he did do some acts of badness), bad peers. They all are charismatic and can "influence" one's way of thinking and "persuade" one to do something criminal. But I think in order to do the criminal act, one would have to be predisposed to act that way. Either they don't have the right/wrong thinking, mentally ill, no conscience, weak (meaning trained to listen to the dominant person), etc.
The criminal talkers ARE wrong, we just can't pin anything on them because the Freedom of Speech Act. But if they do act on their words and are caught, woe to them. People are free to choose how they are going to act and who they are going to listen too. Too bad many people are impaired thinkers-for-themselves.
Yes, madpuppy, the person who yelled fired should have no responsibility for the actions of others trying to leave the building. Just today here at work, the fire alarm went off and there was no fire. And no one died! Isn't a fire alarm the same as yelling fire? If someone kills someone in the process of leaving the building, no matter what the cause, the killer is at fault, not the reason that they left. In the case of a real fire, is it okay for people to kill others in order to leave? No. So, why would a "fake" fire be different? The person yelling fire is responsible for giving bad information and disturbing the peace, not the actions taken by others.
samantha, that is what I realized. I never understood why people would convict someone for the actions of others. Even though I read a lot on influence and see people using it all day long on others, it washed over me. My realization is that others are not like me in this regard. Not only do most people disagree with my stance, but my basis for my stance is based on a different set of beliefs about human nature. I now know that I was very wrong about humans, and people can actually cause people to do things that they wouldn't normally do. Which is why telling someone to kill someone will lead to a conviction for the teller. Though I still have issue with it, it does seem to be the way people work. But, if someone kills someone while trying to leave a building, that I still see as not a part of my new found understanding. If someone yelled "Kill the guy next to you" in a crowded theatre and people did, it seems that person would be responsible for the action of others. < shudder >
Post a Comment