C
Captain Scumbag
Guest
Well, fortunately I wasn’t trying to.
I posited a simple ‘causal relevance' vs. ‘moral relevance’ category distinction because I think it’s useful when discussing distressing events, especially if the discussion is geared towards devising some kind of political solution.
You may disagree regarding its usefulness, but please don’t mistake the intention. The intention is to aid efforts to focus political discussion on the causal events, decisions, etc. that have obvious moral relevance. This has nothing to do with positivism – quite the opposite actually, at least using my dilettante understanding of that term.
That isn’t my position. I certainly favour a moral order in which perpetrators are held primarily responsible for their crimes; but since “primarily” isn’t a synonym for “solely”, there is scope for a secondary analysis in which a lesser degree of culpability may be attributed to third parties. I made this explicitly clear in one of my previous posts.
At the same time, though, I don’t think people should be given carte blanche to throw the blame around willy-nilly. We’re talking about a horrifically violent murder here. To attribute a share of the blame to a person or group that had no direct involvement is quite a charge – one that requires a much stronger standard of argument than I’ve encountered so far. Which brings me neatly to…
This is heavy on assertion but light on detail and argument, so a few questions:
What enlightenment values do you have in mind? How is UKIP rolling them back (or at least trying to)? How does this tie into or support the charge that UKIP is partly to blame for Jo Cox’s murder? If UKIP is part of a problematic socio-political culture, do you think other parties are complicit in this? If so, which ones?
Last edited by a moderator:
