Chidi Anagonye (ikanteven) wrote in incompletedata, @ 2017-12-13 23:19:00 |
|
|||
So I've not been here terribly long, but from what I gather, the Hotel group of this experiment as it's called is one that favors collective punishment of its subjects for individual crimes outside of the scope of the Wittgenstein constitution. And this is something we've all just accepted as the way things are because, the Scientists are powerful? We don't want to make waves? Fear of forward looking collective punishment?
I guess the reasoning behind assigning collective responsibility is on paper, sound. That it is meant to instill the group as the agent of moral arbitration, and foster a sense of a collective identity rather than an individualistic approach to ethical decisionmaking. In small groups, group identity can be protective, groups can foster a collective strength more than any individual possesses for bargaining. Though in too large a group, individuals can be suppressed. And I suppose that's part of the advantage of the squads that we have here. Individual voices are amplified through clustering together, yet the group is not generally so big that individual voices are lost. And if it works for society building, some philosophers might argue that a group is the best unit for maintaining that social structure.
But not all groups are created equal. Squads, part of the constitutional substructure of this experiment, function through clearly defined rules and frameworks that explicitly function to enforce group vetted and publically debated morality. But creating groups based solely upon where our beds our doesn't serve the same function. Peter French posits that groups need an organisational structure which encourages rational decisionmaking, a set of moral guidelines--frequently stricter than those of the general public--and the third is a hierarchical structure through which individuals can act.
Our squads arguably meet these guidelines. Perhaps more the first and the third. The second is up for debate. But our housing? Hotel may meet the first two of French's points. Is there any sort of outlet for individual leadership within those at all? I guess maybe in Mike there is.
The drive for collective punishment is predicated on a backwards looking collective responsibility, focussed on whether a particular individual of a group has caused harm in the sense relevant to moral blameworthiness and not a more forward looking collective responsibility focussed on what role groups or individuals should be doing to prevent stumbling into that blameworthiness. And that's a little up for debate.
But more, the entire premise of group responsibility runs up against a social contracts. Methodological individualists challenge the very possibility of associating moral agency with groups, as distinct from their individual members, and normative individualists argue that collective responsibility violates principles of both individual responsibility and fairness. And a Kantian analysis of collective punishments worry that, particularly in small and randomly assembled , and especially in a group as small and individualist as this, there's a chance that could even discourage individual responsibility, promoting anti-social acts under a guise of group anonymity.
Of course, I suppose it also has its advantages....
I think I've gotten sidetracked. I wanted to talk about what freedom is worth