It's the only language they understand
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
STUMP's leader, Mad Dog, notes, as I did yesterday, that e-Ville Corporation is faking it. The reforms are a con. It's time to get radical. That splits STUMP, and Lina, who still likes it hard and violent, becomes part of Death STUMP. Lina ends up making small bombs for STUMP which are used as incendiary devices.
The bombs cause varying amounts of damage, but one seriously endangers the lives of the director of e-Ville and his family (resulting, I should think, in the wholesale dismissal of his security providers who let a bunch of bomb-wielding hippy tree-huggers get past them) and the fire that resulted from another, led to the death of a fireman. Lina isn't so bothered about the former, but she is about the latter. Nonetheless, they're saving lots of people in the Third World, so it's a small price to pay.
Besides, can Lina be held responsible for the unintentional death of the fireman?
Well, yes.
I suppose that it might be argued that someone who works in a factory making bullets, shells or bombs for the military should be guilty in the same way, but their participation is objective and incidental. They cannot know whether the particular piece of ordinance is going to be used for target practice or in war; and while in wartime they might feel a certain patriotic fervour, no one working in such a factory has such a specific objective as Lina who views herself as a combatant. In addition, the former undertake their work as paid employment just as if they worked in a bank or a shoe shop or a bakery. There are formalised structures connected to such jobs.
On the other hand, Lina wasn't targeting firemen, and she is one step removed from the person who planted the bomb (assuming that her only role is to make them). That doesn't, in my mind, absolve her from bearing some responsibility for any of the consequences of the bombs she made regardless of the accidental nature of the death of the fireman (which is why my initial response was "yes").
But there's a problem with chains of cause and effect, Let's say that I delay some person for some reason. If I hadn't, they would've continued on their way home. But I did, and instead a piano falls on them and they die. The piano kills them, but that person was in the wrong place because I delayed them. Am I responsible? From a practical perspective, I'm not because it was never my intention to cause death by piano. The bombs which Lina makes are a different kettle of fish because they're intended to cause destruction. Destruction is likely to lead to the loss of life even if it's unintentional.
I'm sure the arguments can be scaled up to national level. But because this whole argument is going to end up chasing its own tail and because I have some tests to mark and assistance to render at school, I think I shall bring this to an end.
STUMP's leader, Mad Dog, notes, as I did yesterday, that e-Ville Corporation is faking it. The reforms are a con. It's time to get radical. That splits STUMP, and Lina, who still likes it hard and violent, becomes part of Death STUMP. Lina ends up making small bombs for STUMP which are used as incendiary devices.
The bombs cause varying amounts of damage, but one seriously endangers the lives of the director of e-Ville and his family (resulting, I should think, in the wholesale dismissal of his security providers who let a bunch of bomb-wielding hippy tree-huggers get past them) and the fire that resulted from another, led to the death of a fireman. Lina isn't so bothered about the former, but she is about the latter. Nonetheless, they're saving lots of people in the Third World, so it's a small price to pay.
Besides, can Lina be held responsible for the unintentional death of the fireman?
Well, yes.
I suppose that it might be argued that someone who works in a factory making bullets, shells or bombs for the military should be guilty in the same way, but their participation is objective and incidental. They cannot know whether the particular piece of ordinance is going to be used for target practice or in war; and while in wartime they might feel a certain patriotic fervour, no one working in such a factory has such a specific objective as Lina who views herself as a combatant. In addition, the former undertake their work as paid employment just as if they worked in a bank or a shoe shop or a bakery. There are formalised structures connected to such jobs.
On the other hand, Lina wasn't targeting firemen, and she is one step removed from the person who planted the bomb (assuming that her only role is to make them). That doesn't, in my mind, absolve her from bearing some responsibility for any of the consequences of the bombs she made regardless of the accidental nature of the death of the fireman (which is why my initial response was "yes").
But there's a problem with chains of cause and effect, Let's say that I delay some person for some reason. If I hadn't, they would've continued on their way home. But I did, and instead a piano falls on them and they die. The piano kills them, but that person was in the wrong place because I delayed them. Am I responsible? From a practical perspective, I'm not because it was never my intention to cause death by piano. The bombs which Lina makes are a different kettle of fish because they're intended to cause destruction. Destruction is likely to lead to the loss of life even if it's unintentional.
I'm sure the arguments can be scaled up to national level. But because this whole argument is going to end up chasing its own tail and because I have some tests to mark and assistance to render at school, I think I shall bring this to an end.
Comments