hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I am curious about the concept of complicity - specifically when does someone become at fault for crimes they did not directly commit themselves? I've been reading a whole lot about Warnher Von Braun and the ongoing border crisis in the US and it has me thinking a lot about when people cross moral lines and become part of the problem themselves.
Von Braun can be credibly thought of as a space cadet who's true passion was peaceful exploration of outer space. At the same time, however, he very clearly crossed into moral hazard by developing weapons for the mass-murder and terrorizing of civilians. Moreover, he participated in work camps which resulted in the deaths of more people building the V-2 than were killed by the V-2. Clearly he was complicit in the worst atrocities of the Nazis even as his image was thoroughly rehabilitated after the war.
Right now, the US is perpetrating the same sort of crimes against humanity on the southern border through the practices of massed, indefinite interment and the separation of children from their families. While you and I are not directly responsible for these crimes directly, at what point does our passivity make us complicit?
Does fiery rhetoric on a collegiate corner of the internet absolve us of the crimes of our government? Or do we have to be marching and openly resisting the government on this issue? Does frequent written pleas to our Congresscritters to stop the crimes count as resistance or is it just pissing in the wind?
And how do the motives of the crime perpetrators figure into the complicity of themselves and the populace in the crimes? As @Lexicus pointed out in my book review post, the Manhattan project had many parallels with the V-2 program - indeed they were both meant to end the war even if it meant mass civilian death. While Manhattan was meant to end the murderous Third Reich and Japanese Empire and is thus judged as good, the V-2 was aimed at the British which were carrying out their own atrocities against the Indians in the same time frame.
Von Braun can be credibly thought of as a space cadet who's true passion was peaceful exploration of outer space. At the same time, however, he very clearly crossed into moral hazard by developing weapons for the mass-murder and terrorizing of civilians. Moreover, he participated in work camps which resulted in the deaths of more people building the V-2 than were killed by the V-2. Clearly he was complicit in the worst atrocities of the Nazis even as his image was thoroughly rehabilitated after the war.
Right now, the US is perpetrating the same sort of crimes against humanity on the southern border through the practices of massed, indefinite interment and the separation of children from their families. While you and I are not directly responsible for these crimes directly, at what point does our passivity make us complicit?
Does fiery rhetoric on a collegiate corner of the internet absolve us of the crimes of our government? Or do we have to be marching and openly resisting the government on this issue? Does frequent written pleas to our Congresscritters to stop the crimes count as resistance or is it just pissing in the wind?
And how do the motives of the crime perpetrators figure into the complicity of themselves and the populace in the crimes? As @Lexicus pointed out in my book review post, the Manhattan project had many parallels with the V-2 program - indeed they were both meant to end the war even if it meant mass civilian death. While Manhattan was meant to end the murderous Third Reich and Japanese Empire and is thus judged as good, the V-2 was aimed at the British which were carrying out their own atrocities against the Indians in the same time frame.