Ranking of Dostoevskij novels

Actually, I think your position does have something to do with Tolstoy, if only because his ideas influenced the kind of political liberalism that countenanced notions of collective guilt. I just reject it. In it's extreme form it has proved murderous (a la Stalin: Kulaks were oppressors as a class so we killed them all). Certain other political versions are merely obnoxious (You owe me money because people who had the same color skin as yours enslaved people who had the same color skin as mine). Dream on (such folks can). So we disagree on this, Ecurb. Not the first time it's happened, and we needn't let it come between us as men.

Here is the English link of the series of Michael Sommer:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCba...lh06P1QMhrf44A

Thanks, Danik. Appreciate that.

You´re welcome!

Thanks a lot! I didn't know there were English presentations, too.

There are some nice moments in "Crime and Punishment".
1:54 "...until Raskolnikow takes him home at some point in return for which he is dissed by Marmeladowa..."
7:38 "...and Porfiry does his Inspector Colombo routine again..."
By the way, the names Marmeladow and Luschin are very funny in German (marmelade=jam; Lusche=loser), perhaps intended by Dostoevskij who spent several years in Germany (and deeply despited the Germans which is very funny to read in his "A writer's diary").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

Actually, I think your position does have something to do with Tolstoy, if only because his ideas influenced the kind of political liberalism that countenanced notions of collective guilt. I just reject it. In it's extreme form it has proved murderous (a la Stalin: Kulaks were oppressors as a class so we killed them all). Certain other political versions are merely obnoxious (You owe me money because people who had the same color skin as yours enslaved people who had the same color skin as mine). Dream on (such folks can). So we disagree on this, Ecurb. Not the first time it's happened, and we needn't let it come between us as men.

---

In general, I agree with you and think Tolstoy may have agreed with you. Sin (the Christian position surely is, correct me if I'm wrong) a personal and individual failing, not a collective one. However, it's a complicated issue. Your Kulaks example is not telling. Stalin should not have killed the Kulaks because they belonged to a particular class, nor should he have killed those who held an anti-communist position, opposed collective farming, and tried to keep their personal wealth. It's not the notion of “colllective guilt” that makes Stalin's persecution of the Kulaks horrible: had those individuals who were guilty of obstructing Communist principles been the only ones executed, that would still have been horrible,. Reparations for slavery don't cut it either, for reasons we probably agree about.

However, here's a hypothetical: suppose a man is wrongly convicted of a crime. He rots in prison for 20 years. The truth comes out: not only is the man not guilty, but he was railroaded by the now-deceased prosecutor. He is released (he was a medical student, about do become a physician when convicted), and the state decides to award him restitution of $300k, to give him a new start on life. Of course, this suggests “collective guilt”; all of us citizens constitute “the State”. Do you think the restitution unreasonable, and if not does this suggest that you DO accept the notion (in limited instances, at least) of “collective guilt”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

However, here's a hypothetical: suppose a man is wrongly convicted of a crime. He rots in prison for 20 years. The truth comes out: not only is the man not guilty, but he was railroaded by the now-deceased prosecutor. He is released (he was a medical student, about do become a physician when convicted), and the state decides to award him restitution of $300k, to give him a new start on life. Of course, this suggests “collective guilt”; all of us citizens constitute “the State”. Do you think the restitution unreasonable, and if not does this suggest that you DO accept the notion (in limited instances, at least) of “collective guilt”?

---

Yes to restitution (in that case) but no to collective guilt. A member of the demos may have a responsibility to contribute to the common good by helping a fellow in such circumstances (which could, God forbid, be his or hers some day). But that is different from culpability in the original problem. Some of my federal tax dollar will no doubt be sent to Hawaii to help repair the damage done by the recent volcanic eruption. Not guilty! :)

Aiding victims of natural disasters constitutes neither "reparation" nor "restitution".

Individuals are often mandated by courts to pay reparations, and so, occasionally, is the State. The felon who gets out of prison after serving a JUST sentence of 20 years needs the money just as much as the man who was railroaded; we pay the man unjustly convicted because we admit our guilt in convicting him. Of course it is still reasonable to think that "guilt" can only be an individual failing: the unethical and ambitious prosecutor is most culpable;the elected D.A. who assigned the case should have known better; the voters who elected the DA could have made better choices; those voters who voted for the D.A.'s opponent could have campaigned more diligently. Nonetheless,the reparations are paid by the collective (which seems fair to me,although some members of the collective are more guilty than others).

Another example from our legal system would be a law suit against a corporation. A corporation is clearly a "collective". When sued, a corporation may pay "punitive damages" as well as "actual damages" (or whatever the term for that is). Any punitive damages paid are a penalty for "collective guilt". It's reasonable to think that the actual (moral) guilt is individual, although the financial and legal practicalities make "collective guilt" an appropriate fiction. Nonetheless, collective guilt is a legal reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Aiding victims of natural disasters constitutes neither "reparation" nor "restitution".

---

No, but it is (potentially) the responsibility of a participant in our republic to the contribute to common good (and this is an example of the common good because all are potentially subject to miscarriages of justice). But responsibility to our country is not the same as culpability for a crime. Why should it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

we pay the man unjustly convicted because we admit our guilt in convicting him.

---

Speak for yourself, Ecurb. I didn't do it.

As far as corporate responsibility goes, you have a good point. Those who join corporations on the level of collective liability take their chances. But that hardly makes a retired kindergarten teacher in Des Moines (for example) culpable of someone else's prosecutorial misconduct. Not in a society that at least aspires to justice and morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

Speak for yourself, Ecurb. I didn't do it.

.

---

Neither did the kindergarten teacher in Des Moines. But (assuming the court is in Des Moines) the teacher voted (or failed to vote) in the elections in which the responsible parties were elected. Doesn't that constitute at least a minor "responsibility"? Aren't all citizens responsible for their elected government (albeit only in a very minor way)? I suppose citizenship conferred at birth is involuntary, and a person could refuse responsibility. Except for that, however, it doesn't seem so different from owning stock in a corporation (the kindergarten teacher whose pension fund owns stock could plead lack of responsibility as well).

It seems to me that in a society that aspires to justice and morality each person takes at least some minor responsibility for the activities of his or her government. And, yes, I do speak for myself when I say this responsibility is (in my opinion) not only mine, but yours.

edited to ad: I'll agree with you that although I think we are responsible (to a minor degree) for the actions of our government, our "guilt" in failing in our responsibilities does not reach the level of being criminal (in most cases). So if "guilt" means "culpability for a crime" then we probably agree.

Your argument conflates "minor responsibility" with "our guilt" in prosecutorial misconduct (which is an illegal act). This perfectly demonstrates my original point that some of Tolstoy's ideas (in this case, history/fate being worked in minor increments by the many) being politically abused--if indeed you are arguing that our hypothetical kindergarten teacher was guilty of (or responsible for) a crime in the way he or she voted. Think for a moment about the implications of that view.

Time to respectfully agree to disagree? :)

I thought I made it clear that the way I was using "guilt" did not suggest criminal liability (and thus avoided conflation). A driver who causes an accident is not criminally liable, but must pay "restitution" for the damage caused. A government which perpetrates an injustice may offer reparations (on behalf of all citizens) without suggesting that all of the citizens are crooks (although all of the citizens are "guilty" of having an injustice promulgated on their supposed behalf, and are "responsible" for due diligence in trying to prevent injustice). I do think that Tolstoy (or Tolstoyan thought) may have influenced my thinking here. (Also, I think this notion can be extended to the ridiculous, as in the possibility of reparations for slavery 160 years after the fact.)

I have no problem with disagreement; I was simply exploring whether and where we DO disagree.

The trouble is that accusing a person/voting group of being guilty (your word) of a crime (prosecutorial misconduct is illegal) because of a vote (your example) means exactly that. If you want to walk it back now (or if you feel you already did, or if it was never what you really meant) then fine (and whew!). We agree the kindergarten teacher lacks criminal culpability. In this particular case, we agree on little else, but we both seem content with that. So lets move on.

"Guilt" does not necessarily imply criminal culpability. I certainly never said (that I remember) and never meant that voters are guilty for the crimes of elected officials in that sense. Apparently either I was unclear, or you misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

"Guilt" does not necessarily imply criminal culpability.

---

No, but being guilty of a CRIME does. And prosecutorial misconduct is (still) illegal.

But, okay, okay, we agree that the retired kindergarten teacher from Des Moines and those who voted with him/her are not criminally culpable. God bless the United States of America.* :patriot:

*Where, as far as one's vote goes, to quote the immortal Cindi Lauper, "there ain't no law against in yet." :)