View Single Post
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:

> Vicarious responsibility.
>
> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>
> How to Cite
>
> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>
> Abstract
>
> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
> causing of the damage]
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>
> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
> able to control that person's causing of the damage."


I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say it in
the article.