Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2022 0:11:14 GMT
I posted a post already about why I thought a fault of one caused sactions toward a whole group, and this time I'm goint to continue it, considering some remarks about role of free individuals in it.
Must say I don't really know should it be like I'm going to explain, because such things are seemed to be quite more deep, and more difficult, however there's a clear explanation of why punishing a group is a possible way.
Alright, let's say that an individual finds himself being punished for faults of a group of people with whom he's been living. We may describe his participation to in in different ways: a) he belongs to it by some necessary sings (i.e. his participation is objective); b) he belongs to it occassionally, or c) he doesn't belong to it. Of couse, if he doesn't belong to it, then there have to be no problem to not be punished.
The case (b) that his participation is casual or not necessity may be seen as this person (who's considered to be guilty also - for the faults of the group, or some members in it) is visiting a place, or is having holidays with friends, or appears to be in that group occasionally. Anyway, that kind of participation is also a big question, and I suppose that in this time his guilty is not very provable. It'd rather to consider him be non-guilty, than guilty.
But the case (a) is a special one. I guess only in this case he might be considered to be punished along with the whole group, and here's why. First of all, I think that we'd better to separate these cases into new two: i) when this person has taken some responsibilities, or he has promised to be with that group and accept its will along with it, and ii) his role in that community (or a group) is accepted by many as a necessary participancy. This last one can be illustrated in this way: if X - is a person to be guilty for not his fault, and he belongs to Y - a group of people to which he is participated. And despite a fact that he has never promised anyone about anything of that group - many people would rather consider him to be with that group. As an example: it is a father in a family in whih a daughter (of that family) made a crime. Or this may be a teacher for the group of pupils, and one of those did something bad. (But later I'll add to it something isn't less important.)
Okay, if the person has accepted some rules, and for him are proposed some burdens to keep, then he must response to situations when he's involved into some investigation by being parcitipating to a certain group. And this time his role in it is determined by his promises and the group's politics. If he breaks those rules he is also guilty, because of violation his responsibilities to the group. And I guess not being loyal to the group he breaks his prestige and his oaths that isn't good in too many cases.
I want to explain why I think that the case (c)-(ii) is the one that must be presented in many situations, and why we have to close the circle of our case to those groups (a-c+i,ii). We need it, because an individuum cannot exist by himself. And if we want to see someone as a person we also have to see him not only having rights, but having some responsibilities. It's kinda a false view, when we see people with certain rights, but with no responsibilities. Risking to prompt to do it will lead us to "Idiocracy" (2006 movie) case, when only chaos is alive and rules. No, the society is not only individuality, but a gathering, and the mutual relationships. That is why for an individuum to be a person with face is necessary to be at least in one group, or to participate one group. Never be in any group changing them as fast as gloves - this is not a case of any good view. Such persons are only fake persons. I don't think their way is good.
You may object to me saying that then does it mean that each person must choose his group for his life? But what if he has seen something that makes him leave the group? He cannot be chained to the groups, and besides, it might be like the groups where he was appeared to be criminal? And if he cannot escape such, then he is stuck. - Without a doubt such cases are demonstrative to object me, but, there are things we cannot choose. I mean that we can change a local group, not our nationality or family. Even if we are able to do it does not mean this way is a good one in any kind of view. Again, if we would change the groups to partcipate too often, then our style of living would be most illustrative evidence against us. It's like in the case of religion: if you are a believer, then try to follow the steps of the right path (from the point of view of the religion).
Summary, even if we can avoid being accused for the faults of a certain group with which we're having some relationships, we cannot do it in every case, because despite our wishes or intentions we have to choose some basic communities or the groups to be with, and to share the responsibilities with it. The last one - even if we decided to skip all the possible groups we will never escape our primary task for each person - is to keep staying a human. Be human for any case. Violating this last one automatically object any of our the most good intentions. That is why the necessary moral truths exist, and that is why for us is better not to cross the limits each time, but to find those limits and to follow them, and only that time we may consider themselves persons - the ones with the abilities to be indeed free.
Must say I don't really know should it be like I'm going to explain, because such things are seemed to be quite more deep, and more difficult, however there's a clear explanation of why punishing a group is a possible way.
Alright, let's say that an individual finds himself being punished for faults of a group of people with whom he's been living. We may describe his participation to in in different ways: a) he belongs to it by some necessary sings (i.e. his participation is objective); b) he belongs to it occassionally, or c) he doesn't belong to it. Of couse, if he doesn't belong to it, then there have to be no problem to not be punished.
The case (b) that his participation is casual or not necessity may be seen as this person (who's considered to be guilty also - for the faults of the group, or some members in it) is visiting a place, or is having holidays with friends, or appears to be in that group occasionally. Anyway, that kind of participation is also a big question, and I suppose that in this time his guilty is not very provable. It'd rather to consider him be non-guilty, than guilty.
But the case (a) is a special one. I guess only in this case he might be considered to be punished along with the whole group, and here's why. First of all, I think that we'd better to separate these cases into new two: i) when this person has taken some responsibilities, or he has promised to be with that group and accept its will along with it, and ii) his role in that community (or a group) is accepted by many as a necessary participancy. This last one can be illustrated in this way: if X - is a person to be guilty for not his fault, and he belongs to Y - a group of people to which he is participated. And despite a fact that he has never promised anyone about anything of that group - many people would rather consider him to be with that group. As an example: it is a father in a family in whih a daughter (of that family) made a crime. Or this may be a teacher for the group of pupils, and one of those did something bad. (But later I'll add to it something isn't less important.)
Okay, if the person has accepted some rules, and for him are proposed some burdens to keep, then he must response to situations when he's involved into some investigation by being parcitipating to a certain group. And this time his role in it is determined by his promises and the group's politics. If he breaks those rules he is also guilty, because of violation his responsibilities to the group. And I guess not being loyal to the group he breaks his prestige and his oaths that isn't good in too many cases.
I want to explain why I think that the case (c)-(ii) is the one that must be presented in many situations, and why we have to close the circle of our case to those groups (a-c+i,ii). We need it, because an individuum cannot exist by himself. And if we want to see someone as a person we also have to see him not only having rights, but having some responsibilities. It's kinda a false view, when we see people with certain rights, but with no responsibilities. Risking to prompt to do it will lead us to "Idiocracy" (2006 movie) case, when only chaos is alive and rules. No, the society is not only individuality, but a gathering, and the mutual relationships. That is why for an individuum to be a person with face is necessary to be at least in one group, or to participate one group. Never be in any group changing them as fast as gloves - this is not a case of any good view. Such persons are only fake persons. I don't think their way is good.
You may object to me saying that then does it mean that each person must choose his group for his life? But what if he has seen something that makes him leave the group? He cannot be chained to the groups, and besides, it might be like the groups where he was appeared to be criminal? And if he cannot escape such, then he is stuck. - Without a doubt such cases are demonstrative to object me, but, there are things we cannot choose. I mean that we can change a local group, not our nationality or family. Even if we are able to do it does not mean this way is a good one in any kind of view. Again, if we would change the groups to partcipate too often, then our style of living would be most illustrative evidence against us. It's like in the case of religion: if you are a believer, then try to follow the steps of the right path (from the point of view of the religion).
Summary, even if we can avoid being accused for the faults of a certain group with which we're having some relationships, we cannot do it in every case, because despite our wishes or intentions we have to choose some basic communities or the groups to be with, and to share the responsibilities with it. The last one - even if we decided to skip all the possible groups we will never escape our primary task for each person - is to keep staying a human. Be human for any case. Violating this last one automatically object any of our the most good intentions. That is why the necessary moral truths exist, and that is why for us is better not to cross the limits each time, but to find those limits and to follow them, and only that time we may consider themselves persons - the ones with the abilities to be indeed free.