| | If one makes an honest error, one that is completely devoid of benevolence and, with all the information available at the time, is that person still responsible for the error made?
Example: some friends and I were discussing the complicity of Germans to the Nazis. I said that if you voted for Hitler or failed to speak out against his evil knowing full well what he intended to do (i.e. if you had read of or heard Mein Kampf), you are complicit and guilty for what his government did. My logic, sanctioning something with your vote is as good as doing it yourself.
However, they approached me with a hypothetical: suppose that you investigated as well as you could, in a small town with limited resources (as in, Mein Kampf, radio, etc. are not available), and therefore came up with nothing to oppose the offensive candidate on, and therefore voted for him? You are guilty of an honest mistake, obviously, but are you complicit in the actions of said government and its aftermath?
I feel that the punishment of honest errors, regardless of intent, is to still treat is as an error, and hold those who make mistakes responsible so they do not do it again. What does everyone else think?
P.S. There are some serious issues attached...please respond thoughtfully.
|
|
