Syndicate: collective responsibility and observers?

["Ana Peraica" <ana.peraica@st.tel.hr>]

Dear all,

I would first like to reply to McKenzie Wark; Yes indeed, it is total mixing
of ethics and law, indeed.
And ethic is very unstabile terrain, on which no discovery can change facts,
so polemics on ethics looks as a catching in mud, as without raising an
concept of obligation in ethic, as from introduction of God to explanation
of "calculus of happyness" none can explain; WHY someone should be obligated
on a certain behaviour. The whole polemic could be puten in that way; on
what base someone is responsible for his/her actions, or not-actions. And
that polemic is about the same age as philosophy, so fundation of ethics can
continue for unpredictable time. But, if someone feels like playing endless
game, it is ones right.

And if those are philosophical questions, than it is really unfair to use
victimes in chewing some more or less useless thing. It can hurt victimes
reminding them constantly, and not letting those who survived to live some
their presence or future.

Things are very simple; finally civilisation made laws to prevent long
discussions on morality. And they were changing according to historical
systems, and recognition of some previously not recognised instances...
Unfortunately, civilisation did not realised equality at it's own start...
And that is the ulitmate historical lesson; trying to avoid new
non-recognitions, if it is possible at all.

So, I would like to put it on some other ground. Thing I would like to
notice is, and could be crutial for the discussion is this media made a new
kind of people we got to recognise, and try to reconsider it.
It made a possibility of being passively included in all happenings; and it
is an "observer" about. It is indeed a technology for immediate
communication, but not of immediate action. So, there is a kind of
disbalance.

But thing is; why are those that are included in the information not treated
same as those close to action? Finally that close-fared away relation is
totally dismissed by it. And is there a possiblity to recognise a new
disregarded sort of people that may suffer from some feeling of guilt in
their ethical systems. Sanctions are protecting some rights, finally.

I think this discussion aprooved, from the side of Serbs and those who
entered the polemic the same thing; both can be blaimed for not reacting
using the same criteria of the issuing; that "collective responsitility" for
passivity, and I would like to avoid any kind of that "mud" criteria, with
no basis until someone explain me foundation of ethics, I never could find
except in internal criteria, and one can put a criteria whatever one likes,
and change it whenever one wants to. And feel no responsibility, as in a
different moral system can have totally different valuative remark, but as
well some consistency.

So, why those that did it as well were not acting a certain way, and are
blaimed for that, are guilty; for valuation of for example family lifes more
than thousands of other's lifes. That goes only for those that did not make
any of recongised and regulated crimes, in which I would include some
propaganda as well.

But the main criteria seems the quantity of informations, and their
availability. They did know what is happening and did not react properly, or
not at all?
They can defend themselves on not knowing, which in some, and rare cases can
be the truth /for children, people not knowing to read.../. Obviously seems
as those who knew more were obliged more?

And,  this polemic is happening in a media that is aprooving how infomations
can be presented, and the only one that is making availability of those in
much more than any other. They can be compared, and measured...
Seems as those who used it, no matter where, are guilty, more than others?
Unfortunately those wars are running for a decade.

The whole thing can say; what are rights and obligations of an "observer"?
today more than ever, as seems the quantity of them growed. Can they
emancipate? And, can that be regulated?

Speaking truely, I would like the world without any law, but seems as they
are to protect life and it's treasures. And those wars aprooved that no
matter how my faith in some pre-law state of Locke to reestablish was, human
race is simply not growen enough for that.

Until making a law for protection of rights, this discussion is totally
useless in practice. And only old law "one is inocent until is aprooved
diferently" is applicabile on the topic of guilt feeling. So, only those who
have dossiers can be blaimed and puten under a sanction even on the kind of
blaiming for "moral iresponsiblity", as that is a very bad sanction, as
well, and can frustrate those not guilty. And to cool the discussion; names
of them are known. And for those whose names are not, there is a faith in
another human mistake; when being accused to accuse the other; so we'll find
them out sooner or latter. We can only hope that laws do regulate good
punishments for those awfull things they done. And maybe reconsider some of
them.

Sincerely,

ana


------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
 to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress