On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George > 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.
>
>It most certainly *does* make a difference.

Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.