586. Guilt and causation
 

One would say that if you are not the cause of something bad, you cannot be guilty of it. But this is more complicated than you might think. What is cause? There are several kinds. I use Aristotle’s sevenfold causality, discussed before in this blog. They are as follows: The ‘efficient’ cause (the agent, actor), the ‘final’ cause (goal, motive), the ‘ material’ cause (means used),  the ‘formal’ cause (method), the ‘conditional’ cause (circumstances), the example or model followed, the ‘exemplary’ cause. A carpenter makes a chair out of wood, according to his craft, to earn money or be independent, in a market and under regulations, according to a design or model.

Many people shift the blame for something bad to others, even if they are themselves the main cause. If someone does the deed, it seems obvious that he guilt is his or hers, even if it was not done on purpose, but by accident or mistake, lack of ability or following a bad example.

Doing the deed determines guilt. But one can also be guilty of providing the ideology (final cause), weapons or finance (material cause), tactics or method (final cause), protection or housing nditional cause), setting an example (exemplary cause). These causes can yield mitigating conditions that mitigate the punishment. There was a famous case of a man who shot his wife through a closed door. He averred that he thought it was a burglar. He remains guilty, but if he is right, this can yield a reduced sentence. The deed may have been a mistake, due to lack of competence or forces of circumstance.

Le us consider the drama of the war between Hamas and Israel. Both sides are guilty of mass murder of innocent citizens. A difference is that for Hamas those were the intended victims, while for Israel the victims are said to be ‘collateral damage’ of the endeavour to destroy Hamas. But both sides see it not as guilt, but as honourable acts. The Israelian government and part of the public see it as justified and needed retaliation. Soldiers do what they are commanded to do, but many seem to endorse it. The Palestinians see their actions as justified by a long period of suppression, discrimination, exclusion and land robbery by the Israeli’s. Some aid and abet Hamas by giving them shelter and other means. Others are just victims.

There is debate whether Israel’s response is ‘proportional’. But if x is proportional to infinite evil, it is itself infinite evil. There are absolute standards of what is permitted, as laid down in international martial law. It is not allowed to inflate collateral damage to the monstrous proportions that Israel practics. It is not allowed to use citizens as a shield the way Hamas does. You may not punish innocent people.

In the second world war, German soldiers were ordered to execute jews shivering in a row besides their imminent grave. The soldiers were allowed to refuse and extract themselves, but only few did. So, the soldiers did not have the excuse that they had to follow orders or be executed themselves, and yet the majority complied. Were they guilty? I think they were.

In the virtue ethics of Aristotle, the greatest virtue was ‘phronesis’. That entails that in assigning guilt or more in general the choice, balance and implementation of virtues, take into account the motivation and circumstances, such as mistakes, accidents, ignorance. pressure, and the question whether the accused really did the deed.Thus, the fighters of Hamas were guilty, but a large part of the Palistinian population did not do the deeds of terrorism (efficient cause). Howver, a number of them have encouraged, even glorified the terrorists, or provided a religious fervour (final cause), some have provided the means (material cause),. training (formal cause), hiding and political support (conditional cause. So-called heroes from previous conflicts gave a role model (exemplary cause).

With the Israeli’s the soldiers are perpetrators (efficient cause), but under command of the government. A large part of the population supports their actions, and can think only  of revenge and curtailmemt of future terrorism at all price (final cause). The US provided weapons (material cause), training (formal cause) and political support (conditional cause).Earlier military success provided an example (exemplary cause)

Both sides claim that the victims are not innocent. The enemy is not just a threat to security, but to identity, which is anchored in history, nationality, race, and religion. Their mutual hatred has gone the point of reaching the part of the brain that harbours revulsion. The enemy is seen as inhuman, not worthy of protection, and in need of eradication. Phronesis is not given a chance, and is even seen as not taking a stand, using double standards.