CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are you responsible for things your ancestor did to cause harm
This plays out in many themes in our cultures: do we all carry original sin, do we owe apologies and reparations to groups abused in past generations, should a youth today carry the debts and burdens of his parents, etc?
Let's hypothetically say that you were raped by a mafia member. Then you asked your grandfather, who hunts for sport, to indeed find and kill this person in form of vindication.
Your grandfather exacts the revenge you were seeking for.
At that point you should be taking accountable for the harm that an ancestor of yours has committed, because essentially you have become an accomplice.
Let's hypothetically say that you were raped by a mafia member.
Lots of Mafiosi in Spain?
Then you asked your grandfather, who hunts for sport, to indeed find and kill this person in form of vindication
In this case you are involved in a conspiracy to commit murder and, indeed, that is a crime.
Your grandfather exacts the revenge you were seeking for.
That is not just your grandfather causing harm, but you causing harm. After all, you asked him to do it. Hiring a hitman is a crime: this is no different.
At that point you should be taking accountable for the harm that an ancestor of yours has committed
I think the notion of the debate was in regards to harm committed without any of your own involvement; for instance, the recurring discussion on reparations for slavery.
Yes, if you follow the family "tradition". Such as, If your ancestors were racists, and you follow, ONLY YOU are responsible. If you break with tradition, no.
The problem with owing anything for what happened before you were born is it can never account for all the variables. Perhaps you were merely part of the social group which committed the harm but there is no direct evidence to link to your own family doing anything. Or there is indeed evidence but you may have spent your whole life adamant that you would never have committed that harm had it been your choice. Or there may be harm your own ancestors received from many other groups which contributed to why the harmed a victim. Or you may simply have immigrated to a land after the harm had happened but now just because you're here in the present you and your ancestors are blamed for what happened way back before.
Just using for an example the idea of paying slavery reparations to African Americans, if you made all the white taxpayers pay billions in damages to the blacks you'd end up with people who weren't even here during slavery having to pay. And what about the other tormented social groups form history - whether they be women, Jews, asians, etc? Do they have to pay the blacks? And what about people of split lineage? Would Obama pay just half of his bill? And would blacks who immigrated after slavery get nothing, or would they get the same cut of pay as a slave descendant? These things are never simple. There are just too many variable happening throughout history.
Frankly if every group ever wronged deserved a check then all civilizations would be bankrupt. Then the children of the reparations recipients would end up paying reparations to the societies they bankrupted by demanding reparations. It's ludicrous.
I think it is important to distinguish between personal and social responsibility.
Are you personally responsible? No, of course not. Can you be a member of a group who, as a whole, is responsible? Yes. That does not lead to any sort of transitive personal responsibility, however.
That's because I was speaking to the colloquial meaning of generational responsibility. In the instance you mentioned, you are personally responsible for the situation that unfolded, at least in part, which seems (unless I am mistaken as to the meaning of the OP) to be a different situation than intended.
Thank you for the candid clarification. But yes, the problem with the debate's overarching question is that perhaps it may be not specific enough. I can imagine that the author of this debate prompt intended the argument to revolve around:
"Are you responsible for things your ancestor did to cause harm" + in cases where you've had zero influence over their actions.
Unfortunately this was not specified, in which case my point still holds.
Tends to happen when debates are generalized. That's why I also like the idea of doing debates over more specific cases, it would make the debating more intense and fun :)
OK. I can agree there is a difference between personal and social responsibility. But if socially a payment is mandated the impact is still personal to those who have to pay up.
I disagree. For example, we do not personally contribute to any given war effort simply by paying taxes, yet we are socially responsible for funding it.
In the same sense, we could be personally innocent of a given wrong, but be personally responsible and as a society attempt to fix it via tax funding.
That all just goes into the Social Contract and the foundation of Western society.
How long does this societal responsibility survive? 2 generations? 7 generations? 7 times 7 generations?
Are the people of Normandy still responsible for conquering England, and all the harms afflicted upon the resident Anglo-Saxons in the aftermath thereof?
Are the Moors still responsible for having conquered Spain?
Are the Germans still responsible for the Holocaust?
Is Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11?
The thing is, not everybody in a society partakes in the atrocities which attach themselves to the name of that society.
Let's say, hypothetically, that the town of Hodunk, Iowa committed a mass lynching back at the turn of the century (fin-de-siécle). Not every single townsman committed the lynching - more like 60%, so slightly more than half. Hypothetically, a white woman was raped by a single black man but, because nobody is sure which black man did it, they decide to kill all 8 in the town. Not a total stretch of the imagination, to be sure, though indeed not an everyday occurrence either.
Now, 120 years later, who is responsible? Is the town of Hodunk responsible, and then by extension everybody who make their residence therein? What about the descendants of the 40% who had nothing to do with it, or the immigrants into that town: surely they aren't responsible! But, to say that there is a societal responsibility, the blame is being passed down to them. What about the descendants of the 60%? Surely, since nobody alive currently was around at the time, one cannot say that they are responsible. So then, who exactly is responsible? "Society"? Define "society".
Make no mistake, there was plenty of blame to go around. However, upon the death of the last participant, the blame is also dead. It cannot be passed on; nobody can be held accountable for the actions. The crime is dead, and nothing can be done to resurrect the blame attached to it.
How long does this societal responsibility survive? 2 generations? 7 generations? 7 times 7 generations?
This isn't the type of issue that has any sort of objective standard to it.
Are the people of Normandy still responsible for conquering England, and all the harms afflicted upon the resident Anglo-Saxons in the aftermath thereof?
The people of Normandy were never responsible for it. The nature of Feudalism, which of course predates state-identity, leads responsibility for such things solely in the hands of the feudal lord, so in this case Duke William.
Are the Moors still responsible for having conquered Spain?
Well the fact that the Moors did conquer Spain remains true, and the fact that you can still see effects of said conquest today is also true, so in a way, yes.
Are the Germans still responsible for the Holocaust?
Yes, and they'd be the first one's to tell you that. Germany takes their social responsibility very seriously.
Is Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11?
Rather directly, yes. That's a bit more controversial obviously.
The thing is, not everybody in a society partakes in the atrocities which attach themselves to the name of that society.
Which is why we aren't talking about individual responsibility.
For your hypothetical: You still seem to be thinking that societal responsibility means macro level individual responsibility, which it simply doesn't. Was the town itself responsible? Yes. Yet again: that does not mean the individuals are responsible. Said individuals may feel like they have some sort of duty to alleviate what their home did, some might not. That's entirely up to them. But they have no individual obligation or responsibility, even if their home was itself responsible.
As for defining society, that would, in your example, be the local government, who I would say do have a responsibility for alleviating the effects of this crime, so long as there are still leftover effects from it.
Make no mistake, there was plenty of blame to go around. However, upon the death of the last participant, the blame is also dead. It cannot be passed on; nobody can be held accountable for the actions. The crime is dead, and nothing can be done to resurrect the blame attached to it.
You are still conflating responsibility with blame. I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum because that is just obnoxious, but they simply are not the same. For example: I have obviously benefited from this country's history, as I am a white man. The situation I am in would not exist without massive exploitation of racial minorities all throughout our history. I am not personally responsible for what happened, and my ancestors came here after the majority of it, so they aren't responsible either. I still feel a responsible for helping alleviate the negative effects of that racial oppression, even though I share absolutely no blame for what happened. Because the negative effects still exist, and because I have benefited from what happened, I believe it is my responsibility to help fix that problem.
This isn't the type of issue that has any sort of objective standard to it.
I disagree. I think that as soon as all participants are deceased, so too is the issue.
Learn from the past, but do not either relive or resurrect it.
The nature of Feudalism, which of course predates state-identity, leads responsibility for such things solely in the hands of the feudal lord, so in this case Duke William.
The nature of feudalism gave little power to the head of the system. He was extremely dependent on the respect given him by his barons, and could at any moment face an insurrection against his person by these ever-scheming noblemen.
Anglo-Saxons were singled out in the couple centuries immediately following the Norman Conquest of England. They suffered tremendous hardship at the hands of their conquerors. However, as you admit, William the Conqueror is the one who is responsible for such actions (and, perhaps more so, his nobles); thus the responsibility/blame can only fall on him.
Well the fact that the Moors did conquer Spain remains true, and the fact that you can still see effects of said conquest today is also true, so in a way, yes.
There were also many positive effects. Spain housed one of the greatest libraries in the world, and served as a capital of poetry and learning. Non-Catholic Christians were tolerated with far greater respect than they would have been in Christian Europe, while the Jews also prospered. Does positive responsibility pass on, or only negative?
Does any of this outweigh the damage done? What damage was done? The Moors of today probably have little idea what grandeur their forefathers experienced one thousand years prior to their birth, and experiencing none of this grandeur for themselves, then they cannot be said to experience any of the responsibility - societaly - for events many centuries older than living memory.
This brings me to another question: Is the Catholic Church of today responsible for the Inquisition or any of the other bloody and intolerant events of its past? Is Francis? Now here is a defined and organized entity which has a history going back two millennia of constant violence, war, bloodshed and human rights violations. Is Francis responsible for this in any way, or is some hypothetical "The Church" responsible? What is the meaning of responsibility, and in what way can this responsibility be materialized?
Yes, and they'd be the first one's to tell you that. Germany takes their social responsibility very seriously.
They seem to be one of the only nations in the world that do: the most morally mature nation in the world, I'd argue.
One of the reasons I have such great respect for my ancestral homeland, and so little for the rest of the world.
Rather directly, yes. That's a bit more controversial obviously.
So then why is America still so closely involved with them?
"American Interests" trump anything and everything, even life itself.
Was the town itself responsible? Yes. Yet again: that does not mean the individuals are responsible. Said individuals may feel like they have some sort of duty to alleviate what their home did, some might not. That's entirely up to them. But they have no individual obligation or responsibility, even if their home was itself responsible.
I am at a loss here.
In what universe does an inanimate entity bare any type of responsibility? Is London responsible for Jack the Ripper, or San Francisco for the Zodiac Killer? It seems all too easy to me to simply lop all the blame onto a fictional product of the human imagination (imagine all of humanity were to vanish overnight, there would be no such thing as a 'town' or a 'country' or 'borders' or 'religion'; humans fight most viciously for the products of their own imagination, things which truly do not exist in nature). If a "company" does something in violation of human rights, who is responsible: the company itself, the CEO/board, the individual who ordered it, the individual who carried it out? How can an inanimate entity be given to rectify past mistakes?
This whole notion of responsibility on anything but a personal level to those directly involved opens up so many questions in my mind which I cannot justifiably answer.
I still feel a responsible for helping alleviate the negative effects of that racial oppression, even though I share absolutely no blame for what happened.
You should feel no responsibility.
You should feel a moral desire to alleviate suffering wherever you see it, but the responsibility for dead deeds died with the dead deed-doer.
Everything I have said above is rhetorical. My worldview has no room for the notion of responsibility outside of that of the personal and immediate kind. I really don't have the energy to discuss anything beyond the following:
Members of the UN have been revealed to have engaged in sexual exploitation and enslavement (for instance, in the Balkans). On whom does the responsibility for the actions of those who engaged in such activity fall, and how long will that responsibility remain with either the organization or the actors for their actions? Can a society that believes in sempiternal responsibility also believe in rehabilitation, and what meaning does that rehabilitation have if the responsibility never goes away?
I disagree. I think that as soon as all participants are deceased, so too is the issue.
Learn from the past, but do not either relive or resurrect it.
Except you don't think there is an issue, so you don't think there is any standard. Just because all the people responsible are dead, doesn't mean their actions have disappeared, nor have the effects. Recognizing that the effects still exist isn't "reliving" or "resurrecting" it.
The nature of feudalism gave little power to the head of the system. He was extremely dependent on the respect given him by his barons, and could at any moment face an insurrection against his person by these ever-scheming noblemen.
The nature of feudalism gave extreme power to the head of the system at each level. William and his barons were responsible, but without the state-identity, there is no reason to hold that the serfs, who had no consenting role, historically responsible.
Anglo-Saxons were singled out in the couple centuries immediately following the Norman Conquest of England. They suffered tremendous hardship at the hands of their conquerors. However, as you admit, William the Conqueror is the one who is responsible for such actions (and, perhaps more so, his nobles); thus the responsibility/blame can only fall on him.
You keep repeating the terms responsibility and blame on an individual level. I'm pretty close to ending this conversation simply because you aren't understanding no matter how many times I repeat it that I agree there is no personal, individual responsibility at play here.
There were also many positive effects. Spain housed one of the greatest libraries in the world, and served as a capital of poetry and learning. Non-Catholic Christians were tolerated with far greater respect than they would have been in Christian Europe, while the Jews also prospered. Does positive responsibility pass on, or only negative?
Both, though the negative responsibility is primarily for policy purposes, while the positive is more kind of a "yay us" thing.
Does any of this outweigh the damage done? What damage was done? The Moors of today probably have little idea what grandeur their forefathers experienced one thousand years prior to their birth, and experiencing none of this grandeur for themselves, then they cannot be said to experience any of the responsibility - societaly - for events many centuries older than living memory.
Yet again, I have never said they have any personal responsibility.
This brings me to another question: Is the Catholic Church of today responsible for the Inquisition or any of the other bloody and intolerant events of its past? Is Francis? Now here is a defined and organized entity which has a history going back two millennia of constant violence, war, bloodshed and human rights violations. Is Francis responsible for this in any way, or is some hypothetical "The Church" responsible? What is the meaning of responsibility, and in what way can this responsibility be materialized?
The Inquisition, the destruction of the Cathars, the invasion of Novgorod, the Crusades, all yes. They are an institution that reshaped much of Western (and parts of near Eastern) history, and made no attempt to alleviate it. The fact that we can still see the effects of said actions shows this. That does not make Francis personally responsible, for the umpteenth time.
As for the way it can be materialized, that would be the matter of discussion. No objective criteria can be formed for such a situational topic.
So then why is America still so closely involved with them?
"American Interests" trump anything and everything, even life itself.
You asked, you answered :P
I am at a loss here.
In what universe does an inanimate entity bare any type of responsibility?
In the same universe where said inanimate object inspires loyalty, demands contributions, forms social bindings, etc.
Is London responsible for Jack the Ripper, or San Francisco for the Zodiac Killer? It seems all too easy to me to simply lop all the blame onto a fictional product of the human imagination (imagine all of humanity were to vanish overnight, there would be no such thing as a 'town' or a 'country' or 'borders' or 'religion'; humans fight most viciously for the products of their own imagination, things which truly do not exist in nature).
Seeing as how London did not "do" Jack the Ripper, nor SF the Zodiac Killer, the obvious answer is no. Do you truly not see the distinction between actions committed and sanctioned by a state or organization, and serial killers that exist within a given society? And as for your seemingly "state of nature" argument, the social contract exists, even if only on a non-material, inanimate level. It determines how our society functions and the lens through which we view it. We agree to become a part of this organization, and that establishes a direct affiliation to it. That is where said social responsibility (again, not individual occurs.
If a "company" does something in violation of human rights, who is responsible: the company itself, the CEO/board, the individual who ordered it, the individual who carried it out? How can an inanimate entity be given to rectify past mistakes?
The company as a whole definitely, as well as those proven to have directly contributed. That isn't even controversial; it plays out in Human Rights arbitration courts all the time, and they determine what cost said groups have to pay to ameliorate any given abuse.
You should feel no responsibility.
You should feel a moral desire to alleviate suffering wherever you see it, but the responsibility for dead deeds died with the dead deed-doer.
Again, I do not feel responsible for the deeds. I feel responsible for helping alleviate a situation in which I directly benefited at the cost of others, despite a lack of any and all individual responsibility for the situation.
Members of the UN have been revealed to have engaged in sexual exploitation and enslavement (for instance, in the Balkans). On whom does the responsibility for the actions of those who engaged in such activity fall, and how long will that responsibility remain with either the organization or the actors for their actions? Can a society that believes in sempiternal responsibility also believe in rehabilitation, and what meaning does that rehabilitation have if the responsibility never goes away?
Aside from the fact that I do not believe in sempiternal responsibility, the responsibility lies with the officials within the given states (who represent the respective societies in question), as well as the societies as a whole (via their governments) to ameliorate any left-over effects of said crimes. Said responsibility lasts only* so long as the negative effects last, which means that yes, rehabilitation is entirely possible, if not the entire point.
