On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>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.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another. If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.