Ana Peraica on Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:30:06 +0100 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Syndicate: collective responsibility and observers? |
Dear all, I would first like to reply to McKenzie Wark; Yes indeed, it is total mixing of ethics and law, indeed. And ethic is very unstabile terrain, on which no discovery can change facts, so polemics on ethics looks as a catching in mud, as without raising an concept of obligation in ethic, as from introduction of God to explanation of "calculus of happyness" none can explain; WHY someone should be obligated on a certain behaviour. The whole polemic could be puten in that way; on what base someone is responsible for his/her actions, or not-actions. And that polemic is about the same age as philosophy, so fundation of ethics can continue for unpredictable time. But, if someone feels like playing endless game, it is ones right. And if those are philosophical questions, than it is really unfair to use victimes in chewing some more or less useless thing. It can hurt victimes reminding them constantly, and not letting those who survived to live some their presence or future. Things are very simple; finally civilisation made laws to prevent long discussions on morality. And they were changing according to historical systems, and recognition of some previously not recognised instances... Unfortunately, civilisation did not realised equality at it's own start... And that is the ulitmate historical lesson; trying to avoid new non-recognitions, if it is possible at all. So, I would like to put it on some other ground. Thing I would like to notice is, and could be crutial for the discussion is this media made a new kind of people we got to recognise, and try to reconsider it. It made a possibility of being passively included in all happenings; and it is an "observer" about. It is indeed a technology for immediate communication, but not of immediate action. So, there is a kind of disbalance. But thing is; why are those that are included in the information not treated same as those close to action? Finally that close-fared away relation is totally dismissed by it. And is there a possiblity to recognise a new disregarded sort of people that may suffer from some feeling of guilt in their ethical systems. Sanctions are protecting some rights, finally. I think this discussion aprooved, from the side of Serbs and those who entered the polemic the same thing; both can be blaimed for not reacting using the same criteria of the issuing; that "collective responsitility" for passivity, and I would like to avoid any kind of that "mud" criteria, with no basis until someone explain me foundation of ethics, I never could find except in internal criteria, and one can put a criteria whatever one likes, and change it whenever one wants to. And feel no responsibility, as in a different moral system can have totally different valuative remark, but as well some consistency. So, why those that did it as well were not acting a certain way, and are blaimed for that, are guilty; for valuation of for example family lifes more than thousands of other's lifes. That goes only for those that did not make any of recongised and regulated crimes, in which I would include some propaganda as well. But the main criteria seems the quantity of informations, and their availability. They did know what is happening and did not react properly, or not at all? They can defend themselves on not knowing, which in some, and rare cases can be the truth /for children, people not knowing to read.../. Obviously seems as those who knew more were obliged more? And, this polemic is happening in a media that is aprooving how infomations can be presented, and the only one that is making availability of those in much more than any other. They can be compared, and measured... Seems as those who used it, no matter where, are guilty, more than others? Unfortunately those wars are running for a decade. The whole thing can say; what are rights and obligations of an "observer"? today more than ever, as seems the quantity of them growed. Can they emancipate? And, can that be regulated? Speaking truely, I would like the world without any law, but seems as they are to protect life and it's treasures. And those wars aprooved that no matter how my faith in some pre-law state of Locke to reestablish was, human race is simply not growen enough for that. Until making a law for protection of rights, this discussion is totally useless in practice. And only old law "one is inocent until is aprooved diferently" is applicabile on the topic of guilt feeling. So, only those who have dossiers can be blaimed and puten under a sanction even on the kind of blaiming for "moral iresponsiblity", as that is a very bad sanction, as well, and can frustrate those not guilty. And to cool the discussion; names of them are known. And for those whose names are not, there is a faith in another human mistake; when being accused to accuse the other; so we'll find them out sooner or latter. We can only hope that laws do regulate good punishments for those awfull things they done. And maybe reconsider some of them. Sincerely, ana ------Syndicate mailinglist-------------------- Syndicate network for media culture and media art information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at> in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress