I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.
OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)
You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"
I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."
That's wrong.
Killing a single person? That's wrong.
The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.
THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.
You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.
See how poisonous this shit is?