Do we have to answer for the actions of others just because we share an allegiance to a group? Can we show up just for the free coffee, or do we need to answer for the behavior of the other members? AUTHOR’S NOTE: 1. This video is a personal conversation on morality, not a formal logical argument. My intuition on this issue would not hold up in a real debate, but it guides my ethics and choices. I do not claim a privileged position to morality. 2. The key difference between complicity and non-complicity, as I discuss in the video, is the shared value system, and the actions of the members of the group in good standing. Being a willing part of the apartheid system, for example, even if you were not racist, would carry some level of personal responsibility. 3. “Working from within”, when that includes supporting the group with money and time regardless of the group’s goals, is not ethically viable. If you don’t see that, I’m afraid I can’t explain it to you. 4. I don’t believe there is only one level of complicity. Someone who gives $5 to a Catholic charity does not share the same responsibility as the Pope, but without donations, the continuing abuse and cover-up of past abuses would not have been possible. I wanted to spark a debate. Disagreeing with me on this issue will not hurt my feelings.

{ 25 comments }