Despite having made similar arguments about impact/responsibility a lot, I don't think this one stands scrutiny.
The issue isn't that "speaking up" is impactful but that it's *cheap*.
If we're going to talk about actions which will *definitely* have no (direct) effect, what about saying "The Holocaust was bad"?
It's the cheapest of "virtue signalling" (you know, next to every other human social behaviour) given that time travel doesn't exist and even if it did, what magic would the words do.
It's also a clear invasion of politics into normal life.
But does that make it *bad*?
Words *are* cheap - and that's a really great reason to use them!
Will people be crushed by moral admonitions to pay attention to the world and make minimal contributions like "Holocausts are bad"? Does it make sense to *not speak up* about atrocities you're aware of ... because there are others you're not aware of?
That's not a moral argument, that's just "don't attempt anything unless you can do it perfectly" straw man.
You’ve missed my point, I think. My objection is to the idea that silence makes you *complicit*. So if I don’t say “the Holocaust was bad”, I don’t think that means I’m culpable.
If you look at your window and see someone getting raped, you're complicit if you just watch/go back to bed.
Not nearly *as* complicit as the rapist, but surely a bit.
You can complicate that example - what if you just hear a noise that *might* be rape? What if you see other people at their windows and think 'surely someone else will have already called'? What if the police are really slow and unreliable?
You can even go for the "Aha, but if this were true in a complex world aren't there millions of things we'd be complicit for by commission/omission!" - and the answer is "obviously yes".
But, again, are you complicit in a rape if you witness it but don't call the police ... because you're feeling really overwhelmed?
I think you can very reasonably make a case for "specialisation of labour - we pay to have a government with a foreign minister to have someone full-time keeping track of all 195 states in the world - including Sudan!".
But the fact that you maybe pay taxes for the police doesn't mean you're not *a bit* complicit in a rape that's ongoing where the police aren't already on the scene.
Hahaha, yes, ok, you've got me. In the scenario where I alone am aware of a crime happening, and I have sufficient power to prevent the crime in some way, then yes, then not doing something would be complicit. But what you've done there is construct a scenario so different as to be irrelevant. None of this maps to anything I was talking about.
> am aware of a crime happening, and I have sufficient power
At (tedious) length I carefully went through all the caveats you raise "what does it change *if I'm not sure* a crime is happening?", "what does it change *if I don't know I have sufficient power*", "what if I'm not alone?".
The question marks at the end were not rhetorical.
Once you've admitted that you're complicit if you hear something, get out of bed, go to window and see something you're very confident is a rape you don't need to be a moral philosopher to ask whether complicit goes away ...
... if you don't get out of bed.
Your original argument was "No complicity from silence - just no!".
On first challenge you've moved to "Well, obviously, yes actually - but it depends on circumstances!".
If you're going to say "the scenario is *so different* it doesn't count" then you've put yourself on the spot to say *specifically what* is so different about it that makes the complicity disappear.
But even here, it's not silence that brings complicity, but a lack of action, and that's different. If I see a crime and I tweet about it being bad, I'm not being silent, but in not doing anything to stop it, I'm complicit. Here, silence isn't complicity, inaction is. "Speaking up" about witnessing a crime in progress doesn't achieve anything, intervening does.
Anyway, fun as this is, I do have a day job I need to attend to at this point.
In this example, silence here is "not picking up the phone to call the police".
In the paedophilia/holocaust example, silence is "maintaining a policy of public neutrality, regardless of private feelings".
In none of the examples are you *certain* that "speaking up" will definitely achieve something - all *real world moral questions* are probabilistic (something moral philosophers tend to struggle with).
If you prefer, we can also run with the "Holocaust Neutral" example.
Are you complicit in genocide because you - as some random individual - pointedly don't contribute to the anti-genocide norm?
I would say "yes, obviously". Not as much as the guy who is "Holocaust Positive" - but not a lot less - because, as you argue, the expected impact of just one random person (veil of ignorance, assuming you're not president of the united states) is tiny.
The practical measure of a moral choice is not just the expected impact but also how much effort it is.
"Holocaust Neutral" guy is weird not because their expected extra future holocausts impact is high (altho don't assume linearity!) but because the cost to assent to the "genocide bad" norm is minute.
I'm sorry, I just disagree here. A person who thinks genocide is bad but doesn't feel the need to say that out loud is not complicit in any genocides which might happen. Sorry, no.
"Saying something is bad" is most basic level of social norm support there is.
Social norms are the most effective means of controlling behaviour - arguably even in contention with "setting up and maintaining a police force" - but assuming you're somewhere where you can't do that/taxes aren't optional.
I think it's basically incoherent to say "Look, I *believe* paedophilia is wrong. But I don't ... like making moralising statements so - despite my *private* feelings - I'm public paedophilia-neutral." and not accept some complicity.
Yeah, sure you can "yes, but only by omission and only by a tiny marginal effect given that everyone else is mostly not following my example because I'm strangely unpopular".
But the relevant stuff is the bit before the but.
"I just Don't Feel The Need to <contribute to the social norm against paedophilia>, isn't it enough that I don't engage in paedophilia and think it's really bad in the privacy of my own head?"
Despite having made similar arguments about impact/responsibility a lot, I don't think this one stands scrutiny.
The issue isn't that "speaking up" is impactful but that it's *cheap*.
If we're going to talk about actions which will *definitely* have no (direct) effect, what about saying "The Holocaust was bad"?
It's the cheapest of "virtue signalling" (you know, next to every other human social behaviour) given that time travel doesn't exist and even if it did, what magic would the words do.
It's also a clear invasion of politics into normal life.
But does that make it *bad*?
Words *are* cheap - and that's a really great reason to use them!
Will people be crushed by moral admonitions to pay attention to the world and make minimal contributions like "Holocausts are bad"? Does it make sense to *not speak up* about atrocities you're aware of ... because there are others you're not aware of?
That's not a moral argument, that's just "don't attempt anything unless you can do it perfectly" straw man.
You’ve missed my point, I think. My objection is to the idea that silence makes you *complicit*. So if I don’t say “the Holocaust was bad”, I don’t think that means I’m culpable.
Of course silence is complicity.
If you look at your window and see someone getting raped, you're complicit if you just watch/go back to bed.
Not nearly *as* complicit as the rapist, but surely a bit.
You can complicate that example - what if you just hear a noise that *might* be rape? What if you see other people at their windows and think 'surely someone else will have already called'? What if the police are really slow and unreliable?
You can even go for the "Aha, but if this were true in a complex world aren't there millions of things we'd be complicit for by commission/omission!" - and the answer is "obviously yes".
But, again, are you complicit in a rape if you witness it but don't call the police ... because you're feeling really overwhelmed?
I think you can very reasonably make a case for "specialisation of labour - we pay to have a government with a foreign minister to have someone full-time keeping track of all 195 states in the world - including Sudan!".
But the fact that you maybe pay taxes for the police doesn't mean you're not *a bit* complicit in a rape that's ongoing where the police aren't already on the scene.
Hahaha, yes, ok, you've got me. In the scenario where I alone am aware of a crime happening, and I have sufficient power to prevent the crime in some way, then yes, then not doing something would be complicit. But what you've done there is construct a scenario so different as to be irrelevant. None of this maps to anything I was talking about.
> am aware of a crime happening, and I have sufficient power
At (tedious) length I carefully went through all the caveats you raise "what does it change *if I'm not sure* a crime is happening?", "what does it change *if I don't know I have sufficient power*", "what if I'm not alone?".
The question marks at the end were not rhetorical.
Once you've admitted that you're complicit if you hear something, get out of bed, go to window and see something you're very confident is a rape you don't need to be a moral philosopher to ask whether complicit goes away ...
... if you don't get out of bed.
Your original argument was "No complicity from silence - just no!".
On first challenge you've moved to "Well, obviously, yes actually - but it depends on circumstances!".
If you're going to say "the scenario is *so different* it doesn't count" then you've put yourself on the spot to say *specifically what* is so different about it that makes the complicity disappear.
But even here, it's not silence that brings complicity, but a lack of action, and that's different. If I see a crime and I tweet about it being bad, I'm not being silent, but in not doing anything to stop it, I'm complicit. Here, silence isn't complicity, inaction is. "Speaking up" about witnessing a crime in progress doesn't achieve anything, intervening does.
Anyway, fun as this is, I do have a day job I need to attend to at this point.
In this example, silence here is "not picking up the phone to call the police".
In the paedophilia/holocaust example, silence is "maintaining a policy of public neutrality, regardless of private feelings".
In none of the examples are you *certain* that "speaking up" will definitely achieve something - all *real world moral questions* are probabilistic (something moral philosophers tend to struggle with).
If you prefer, we can also run with the "Holocaust Neutral" example.
Are you complicit in genocide because you - as some random individual - pointedly don't contribute to the anti-genocide norm?
I would say "yes, obviously". Not as much as the guy who is "Holocaust Positive" - but not a lot less - because, as you argue, the expected impact of just one random person (veil of ignorance, assuming you're not president of the united states) is tiny.
The practical measure of a moral choice is not just the expected impact but also how much effort it is.
"Holocaust Neutral" guy is weird not because their expected extra future holocausts impact is high (altho don't assume linearity!) but because the cost to assent to the "genocide bad" norm is minute.
I'm sorry, I just disagree here. A person who thinks genocide is bad but doesn't feel the need to say that out loud is not complicit in any genocides which might happen. Sorry, no.
I think it very clearly is.
"Saying something is bad" is most basic level of social norm support there is.
Social norms are the most effective means of controlling behaviour - arguably even in contention with "setting up and maintaining a police force" - but assuming you're somewhere where you can't do that/taxes aren't optional.
I think it's basically incoherent to say "Look, I *believe* paedophilia is wrong. But I don't ... like making moralising statements so - despite my *private* feelings - I'm public paedophilia-neutral." and not accept some complicity.
Yeah, sure you can "yes, but only by omission and only by a tiny marginal effect given that everyone else is mostly not following my example because I'm strangely unpopular".
But the relevant stuff is the bit before the but.
"I just Don't Feel The Need to <contribute to the social norm against paedophilia>, isn't it enough that I don't engage in paedophilia and think it's really bad in the privacy of my own head?"
Is the man who says "genocide is bad" nine times a day more culpable for genocides than the man who says it ten times a day?
Somewhat off topic (normally I would message you bt am on a Twitter break): have you seen?
https://youtu.be/2aUaeOw6Q-c?si=zdqiaQMq4GCbB8AW