|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
|
|
|
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George > 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.
Your position is gutted without "iff".
|