Argument edited to add an interesting link. On martes, 26 de marzo de 2019 14:22:19 (CET) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > The point is simply that you cannot blame the people of nowadays for > decisions that were made way before they were born.
You just say that as it was clare and evident. I think ethics are an interesting subject, led me try to resume it even more literally to explicit the fallacy. I understand that your line put this 2 ideas on the table: 1 - You cannot blame one person for his present situation if it was not his decision nor intention. (soft interpretation) 2 - You cannot blame one person for his present situation if he was born after the decision. (rigorous interpretation) I am sure that there can be some situations where this lines are true and others were this lines aren't true. For the soft interpretation, If you have one heart of a specifically killed non-volunteer donor, you are not to blame if you here not informed and you wouldn't accept it voluntarily. It is different if you now decide to continue having one kidney (stolen form other person and you now know he is going to die if you do not return his kidney) you know you are to be blamed for his death. That notwithstanding, if I where to judge you for it, I wouldn't force one innocent person to die to prevent the death of other innocent person. (if you participated in the decision that would be very different.) For the hard interpretation, I think it is the same. Some times you are not to be blamed and sometimes you really are. For example, if you where now multimillionaire due to your father selling narcotics or you could have a lot of art goods due to the fact that your father was a tyrant that stole all that from other people. So, now you are rich but your money is full of blood or, you have a lot of priceless peaces of art stolen. Some people will see no problem in you been rich from both heritages, some people will blame you from just one of that ways. And some people will accept to pay like German people did: > https://abcnews.go.com/International/germany-makes-final-reparation-payments-world-war/story?id=11755920 I think our society would have a proclivity to achieve a higher stands of leaving and happiness if we agree that sometimes you cannot profit from one situation just because you where not to blame initially. The fallacy is that you focused on the initial decision and obviously no one is to blame for one decision done without his participation but, you forgot the key idea: sometimes you are to blame from profiting from one unfair situation because you consent NOW and you continue nor reparing the damage neither stop causing more damage. Now, led me say that I read very interesting arguments from both sides: "United Nations has described Israel as an apartheid state. When you internationally choose to have a technical conference in a apartheid state you are supporting that regime and supporting its criminal and human rights violations against Palestinians." Nasir El-Amin I firstly agreed with that idea, but now, I think there is a fake dichotomy fallacy here. We are pro-human right violations or not; no other possible intentions/paths/liberties there? What if I tell you that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah told you to stop things with the hands or with your tongue or within your heart. That means that we can have different ways/strategies to react to one injustice. What if I tell you that the so called prophet told you that you must behave well but measure your efforts to be able to make a lot of good things but not to do too good things that require more effort that you are able to accept afterwards? In that sense, led me to ask you if you are asking from the people of Israel one effort that overpass their capacity? (If you are a rich person you can take a plain to other country and build a new home and bossiness there but if you are poor, that is not always one alternative(nor ethical dilemma in my humble opinion)) "We must not confuse a system with the citizens living in a country." Georges Khaznadar I agree with that. It could be said about the URSS, China or even EEUU. The point is that in this case some of them are not just living but profiting from a dark past and more importantly, profiting from a dark present injustice and the separation (state responsibility & personal responsibility) could not be so tenable. Will you force the German banks to return the money and stolen art to familiars? I think that having this precepts enshrined in our standards or in our moral compass would conduct us to better societies and more happiness. Where is this debate been opened? Sorry if I wrote here, I thought this subject as others, are better been openly spoken with respect (and of course, avoiding flames). To silent or censure it leaves emotions unspoken and that leads to worst consequences than a patient constructive dialogue. Peace and Freedom -- René Mérou
