←back to thread

Accountability sinks

(aworkinglibrary.com)
493 points l0b0 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
calvinmorrison ◴[] No.41892080[source]
Organizations exist to remove moral culpability

Judge, Jury and Executioner Firing Squad Limited Liability Organisation

Humans like to sleep at night. An emergent property of our rule of law is that it exists in a way to reduce the moral culpability of any individual. A police man, a jury member, a judge, a inspector, an executioner, a jailer, they all exist in very neat boxes. These boxes allow them to sleep at night. Surely the Judge has few qualms going by the recommended mandatory minimum, after the jury, who is assured the judge will provide a fair sentence, and the executioner doubly so, with double the potential moral hazard, is certain at least two other parties have done their due diligence.

these systems prevent a single actor from acting. More like they allow a series of hand offs, so by the time the jailer is slamming the doors shut, they are bereft of any investment in the morality of the outcome

The firing squad, with seven guns, all line up, with just one loaded. The rest are blanks. Each man can sleep at night, regardless if the murdered man was surely deserving of death

large institutions, organizations and objects are scale are fully inhumane

I would rather have my jailer be my judge and my executioner be each man or woman on the jury. Isolating each of these things allows the individuals to have almost a powerless notion of 'completing our task'. As if all tasks completed would add up to a moral outcome

Should juries be formed to perform the whipping of an individual, the institutionalization in their own homes, the judge forced to starve a prisoner in his cell, i find the outcomes would be different

replies(5): >>41892097 #>>41892175 #>>41892199 #>>41892226 #>>41892245 #
sitkack ◴[] No.41892097[source]
Our meat is bought from the butcher, delivered to the chef so it comes not as an animal, but part of a tasty dish.

If we eat meat, we should kill it ourselves.

replies(1): >>41892234 #
1. chamomeal ◴[] No.41892234[source]
I get a lot of shit for saying this, but I agree completely!

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with eating animals. But I have a particularly carnivorous friend who thinks hunting is for sociopaths, because he “loves animals”.

If I wouldn’t harvest it, I won’t eat it. And I definitely would be too timid to slaughter a freaking cow lol

replies(2): >>41892249 #>>41892856 #
2. TZubiri ◴[] No.41892249[source]
The man who issues the sentence must swing the sword
3. bentinata ◴[] No.41892856[source]
I think it's a matter of hygiene and speed. Sure I could butcher a chicken, maybe have a shot at a bigger animal like a goat or cow. I've seen it multiple times since I live in a country that regularly do animal sacrifice. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do it as clean or as fast as the usual butcher.

It does feel different from market-bought meat though, at least for me.

replies(2): >>41897198 #>>41903214 #
4. sitkack ◴[] No.41897198[source]
If someone is unable to kill an animal, should they eat the animal? It is another matter to ask everyone to raise their own livestock.
5. chamomeal ◴[] No.41903214[source]
Yeah of course it makes sense for people to specialize. My point is more regarding people like my friend, for whom “killing animals” and “eating meat” are completely different things.

If I wouldn’t kill a chicken because you would feel bad, then I shouldn’t be able to eat chicken without feeling bad. If I’m able to do that, it’s because a big food production system has falsely separated those concepts in my head. Kind of similar to the accountability sinks in the linked post