Bitcoin Forum

For this hypothetical, let us presume that you have a child, around 6 years of age.

Scenario:



Simple question: Is your child at all morally culpable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culpable) for the little girl being hurt?


(It may make a difference if you stop to consider if you would attempt to correct the child's behavior in such a scenario.)

If you aren't sure, or think it primarily depends on other factors, then there is no need to vote, as only "Yes" and "No" are options, and your vote can't be changed afterwards.

Comments and/or explanations encouraged, regardless of your vote (or non-vote.) Also, if you vote "No" but would still attempt to correct the child's behavior, a brief explanation of your thinking would probably be helpful to the discussion.

Yes.

As would I be for allowing my child to be raised in such a callous manner as to incite group hysteria that led to the injury of the other child.

Both the child and the parent should receive an appropriate consequence for their actions (or lack of action, in the case of the parent) the child deprivation of a favored possession and an educational trip to learn about what taking care of skinned knees is all about, and assisting the other child in recovery.

The parent must assume all responsibility for the costs associated with care of the other child's wounds, and must face both that child and the parents to explain his poor performance as a parent.

Not in any community I have ever or would ever choose to live in. I blame the parents for being inept, but not culpable. I raised wonderful and college educated children that are now productive tax payers. I don't ask society to pay me for producing these tax revenue generators and in turn I expect a social contract in my community that shares some of the expenses of the commons, like healthcare for children.

My answer was no. Only the adult there begs to know the difference, so is responsible for teaching it to that child. If the child turns in a 40 year old still doing the same thing, because the "watcher", who knew better, didn't intervene when he was 6 (or up until 40), then it's not the now adult's fault for performing an action that they thought was acceptable their whole life. We're a herd species, and we predominantly learn our behavior from others, either by example or discipline.

Something we might take for granted - eating meat, could easily be passed on in different ways, depending on who is watching, and who is or isn't commanding. The same applies to religion. We believe what our parents believe until they're not our only source of information.

If the thought occurs independently (without sight of others, and through pure logical reasoning alone), the child may change his behavior autonomously, but I would think that's extremely rare.

Four votes so far, but already interesting. I'll wait a bit longer before commenting further.

Also, the first post has a link to the specific definition of "culpable" that I'm using; no legal obligation or warranting of an aggressive response is meant by it.

I think the objective answer is both answers because reality stands under no morality. Whether the child is held "culpable" to the preceding events is only up to the whims of the powers above him, if any.

Morality only exists in the individual human perception. Blame and consequence stands under only human subjects of varying perceptions. The answer is dependent only on culture. The actions against the child will only be made according to subjective whims.

My take:

Honestly, who cares if the girl skinned her knee? She'll heal. I would make a suggestion to my child to be more empathetic to those in pain. Otherwise, life goes on. Nothing was lost but another experience was gained.

The true question is if this is really worth thinking about -- unless you're an authoritarian bent on shoving your flavor of morality down everybody's throats?

I'd be furious with one of my kids laughing at the person in pain.  But the prank is just a fun thing kids do.

A much simpler scenario might clear things up.

Let's suppose I have a gun in my hand and I'm demonstrating it to my neighbor with whom I have a friendly relationship. Someone comes up from behind me and produces a loud percussive bang. In response and without provocation, I reflexively contract my muscles due to the unexpected startling noise. The gun discharges a bullet instantly killing my friend.

Who's at fault, and for what?

Does it matter if anybody was laughing afterwards? What if there was no remorse by the noise maker? What if I said my friend deserved what he got? What if I said I was planning on shooting him anyway? Should the aforementioned change the punishment, if any?

If you bring firearms into this, what if the little girl was packing and drew down in self-defense?  :P

So you like the idea of thought crimes? What if I wrote about killing somebody in a book and they forthwith died? Does that make me guilty of any crime? Does that make me an accomplice?

Holliday is right on the big question.  There is a right way to demonstrate how a gun works and if you do it wrong, you are responsible for whoever gets hurt.  Call it the Cheney rule :P

Disagree on the murder thing though - its a simple crime and expanding the definition to include accidental killings would be pointless.

I love this thread.


The little girl was a victim of an supposed accident of a reaction caused by the child, a reaction that if had led to the death of the little girl, the child and the parent would be held responsible for manslaughter most assuredly.

The measure of reaction should therefor be proportionate to the amount of harm caused to others, punishment fitting the crime and all that. With a nondebilitating wound, responsibilities would ideally include insuring the child's safety, apologizing to the appropriate parties (apology from child to little girl if parents not present, apology to both parents and little girl from both parent and child if present), and making a mental note to be more thoughtful in future pranks.

Never let the emphasis shift to "What can I get away with". That is how societies are ruined.

Well if all we cared about was the fact he was dead, and it was by my hand, then we should just dispense with all of the fancy wordplay and just call it murder. Thusly, we should then make everyone pay for the crime (death by another person) in exactly the same way (equivalent number of years served in prison, or capital punishment, restitution, pain etc.)

Otherwise, what would be the point of having murder 1, 2, 3, manslaughter, etc. All of those call to intent. To wit, at the time of my friends death, I had no intention of killing him. That intent preexisted his death no doubt, but it was a mere passing thought and not what I acted upon (supposition based upon testimony).

If we examine the intent at the time of my friends death (there was none), then you should apply the rules to match the circumstances. Anything else, and you could draw all sorts of inferences from all sorts of places and situations, and since I'm not perfect, could conclude that I must have just wanted him dead, hence a murderer.

Where do you draw the line?

And that's exactly what it comes down to to define something as an accident or not. Very elementary stuff. If someone intended on doing it, it wasn't an accident.

When the little girl fell, the child didn't intend on that happening, therefor it wasn't an accident. That doesn't mean it wasn't a direct result of what he did though, and if I were that child I would feel compelled (and embarrassed) to go over to the girl and make sure she was okay.

I didn't change the scenario, just the thought processes (some preexisting, some not) of the individuals involved (after the incident). They were just the same outcome with different thoughts and opinions. If you remember, the first circumstance was just the facts. It was a involuntary reflexive muscle action resulting in the death of a friend. You could call this an accident (it was described as such). It remains an accident regardless of how I felt towards my friend in the past or present. They are two completely unrelated events.

But the second you found out I had considered killing my friend in the past, but did not, now the punishment changes? That doesn't make sense. I can think about harming people and do nothing about it (we'll assume I'm mystery murder fiction author for the sake of this argument). But just because the person I'm thinking about dies accidentally despite my feelings in the past, doesn't make me the murderer now.

An accident is an accident is an accident. Murder is a different animal altogether. Death just describes the facts.

Morality is not objectively definable. These arguments are so pointless. You guys are pretty much throwing opinions at each other.

Humans call this communication. Absorb.

Good man :) 

Everyone is morally responsible for what they claim is the truth.  Because of the implied danger, the others can not be expected to each evaluate the situation immediately, but should believe that the one person is doing their moral duty.  

The boy who cried wolf was responsible.

And so is that goddamn wolf, always running away right when the village comes running to see, such tomfoolery is downright reprehensible!

Would have responded last night had the forum not been down.

Those arguing that this is pointless because there is no such thing as morality (or there is no correct answer to this question, etc.) might as well bow out of the thread. Culpability implies an element of morality in this case; if you believe that that element doesn't exist, then there's not much for you to discuss regarding culpability.

While the scenario might arguably be simpler, the questions and implications seem to just make the point of the initial question more obscure. That's why I fashioned the initial scenario as I did, and removed the heavy moral weight of culpability for a death from the equation: to quickly get at the root issue.

Asking if someone is at all morally culpable for some specific incident--particularly the one given--shouldn't be that hard to discern on it's on, should it?

To those who voted "No," two further questions:

1) The group event that occurred in the scenario (let's call it a "mini-stampede," shall we?); was that event intentionally created (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create) by the child?

2) The singular incident that occurred, of the little girl being knocked down and hurt; was that incident brought about as a direct result (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/result) of the mini-stampede?

How about I give the girl who skinned her knee twenty bucks and call it a day?

Why would you, if there's no moral culpability? Because others want you to?

No offense, but that seems a little out of character.

Suggesting that money solves all problems? Stressing that people who have problems can all be bought off if you're rich? Insinuating that poor people are worth less? It's pretty much perfectly in-character for Atlas.

Who cares?  Kids play and get a little hurt.  If that bothers you, you haven't had kids.

Of course they do. I'm not even suggesting that the child be told to not do it again.

It's merely a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

I'm firmly in the "No" camp.  The words "prank" "moral responsible" and "6 year old" are a poor combination to me.

Well, I admit, part of my intent was to create such an odd combination. But not one so convoluted as to defy moral analysis, if any moral aspect exists, despite the oddness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your belief seems, moreso than simply "No culpability exists," to be "Any such 'culpability' in this case is too trivial to be worth dealing with."

That's a sensible enough take, but it's not quite a denial that moral analysis of the situation is feasible. And if it's feasible to analyze this scenario, then the conclusion should speak volumes as to similar situations.

Sorry I am lost.  The key fact here is that the child is 6 years old.  She is not old enough to decide whether or not its safe to cross a busy street.  If you allowed her out alone and she were killed by a truck, no-one would hesitate to blame you. 

What do we gain by trying to impute moral responsibility to such a being? 

Since this is a minimal case (a situation where the lightest level of culpability, however slight, can be reasonably assigned,) it can be used to establish a baseline.

By determining whether a moral responsibility is there or not, we can then establish a valid chain of logical reasoning for other situations, particularly extremely similar ones.

If the age is enough of a concern that you don't consider the child capable of moral responsibility, raise the age a few years and you can still establish your baseline.

Would your answer change if the children were 9?

It would change my answer if the age were taken out and we assumed all the actors were adults capable of moral responsibility. 

Some might stick and change the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/judge-will-decide-if-charges-against-9-year-old-in-school-shooting-will-proceed/2012/02/24/gIQA2oZHXR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Who would have guessed a real world example would pop along so soon?

In this case, I would not say the boy is morally culpable.  What child could resist a gun that is left out in their play area?

Moral, I prefer the term ethic, is one thing, while judicial issues are something different.
Maybe arguing this case is getting easier if you tell these two apart.