These gang rapists were wrong, because they took away that girl’s freedom and made her do something against her will. To Kant, a right deals with the association or relation of people, with an influence by the law of freedom. Freedom is what is right, only in the way in which it cannot hinder anyone else’s freedom. This would mean that in the case of the girl at homecoming, the gang rapists’ wrong actions hindered her from the freedom to choose the right actions for her self-preservation.
One of the most intriguing subsections of the Doctrine of Right is that of coercion. Coercion, alone, is seen as a hindrance on freedom and is, thus, a wrong action. Though this is true, Kant states that coercion can be used to control those people who have a tendency to will the wrong with a fear of the consequences (SEP). This idea goes back to the two incentives to do right; one being ethically by duty and the other being judicially by a person’s will. This will can be persuaded by fear and inclination. In the incident described before, it was mentioned that there was a crowd around them, watching the event unfold, doing nothing to stop it. This idea of the bystander leads one to think about this idea of coercion. Is there a law that talks about the role of the bystander in this type of situation? Is it the bystander’s duty to do something when they know this act is limiting someone’s freedom? Perhaps they were coerced into maintaining a non-responsive mindset. In the mind of the bystander, everyone else around them was doing the same thing as them, so it must be right. Kant would say that this idea goes against the universal laws and is, thus, wrong. He states in “What is Right?”, “ but whether what these laws prescribed is also right, and what the universal criterion is by which one could recognize right as well as wrong" (Kant 6:230). Instead of regarding the “laws prescribed” as governmental laws, we can apply the same theory to social laws, like that of the bystander. This social law is a coercion of individuals to follow the masses’ behavior.
Kant would then say that the way to rid of this coercion is to have a coercion on coercion, or, in other words, “...hindering of a hindrance to freedom...” (6:229). Thus, we gain specific governmental laws to coerce those who will with wrong inclination to follow universal laws. We then gain a solid approach to what is right, making sure that everyone follows the universal laws (though easier said then done).
References:
Chen, Stephanie. "Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role." CNN Justice. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.
Anderson, Scott. "Coercion." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 10 Feb. 2006. Web. 9 Nov. 2009.
Immanuel, Kant,. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
4 comments:
I know that many psychologists are saying that no one reported the crime because of the bystander affect or mob mentality. These theories relate to Kant's idea of a universal law, in which what applies for one person applies for all persons and cases. The bystanders who look around and see that no one else is stopping the crime accept that what is right for everyone else is right for them and thus act accordingly. All it would have taken to prevent this tragedy is one person using their own reason to reach a universal law. A story like this makes one disgusted a mankind. Kant is overly idealistic in believing that all people can reason rationally. The bystanders fail to recognize the girl as a person with the right to her own end and act out of inclination.
I think CNN said something about the bystanders not wanting to act because they didn't want to be viewed as "snitches", so in a sense, this also shows mankind's selfishness and their instinct for self-preservation. The person who actually called the police was a fellow student who wasn't even there at the scene of the rape. Word had traveled around that a girl was being raped outside of school, and that the girl was still lying there.
I think we can all agree that the men’s decision to rape the woman was wrong because the men were hindering her freedom. However, what is less clear is whether the bystanders were right or wrong in not doing anything. One of the things we have to remember is Kant’s suggestion that we all have the duty to promote the happiness of others. In this case the bystanders seem to be doing the opposite by not helping the woman. We can all agree the victim would have been happy and grateful if someone had come to her rescue.
Ignoring an injustice doesn't make it right. It only further promotes. it.
The men who raped the girl were just as wrong in doing so as the people who just stood by and watched. This makes me think of the idea of negative responsibility which states that not doing something has the same moral worth as allowing it to happen.
I agree that everyone at the scene of the crime was guilty. However, can it be said that the bystanders were not completely guilty if their watching and taking pictures/videos of the event led to someone learning about the incident and taking action?
Post a Comment