Community as moral construct?

[Surlethe]

I was doing some research recently, and I came across this:

Other things being equal, if a community owes compensation to certain persons, and if the costs of compensation cannot be assigned to the perpetrators of injustice, then each member of the community should bear an equal portion of those costs.

But isn't a community an amoral construct? It is made of humans capable of morality, but isn't saying "composed of moral creatures ==> composition is moral" a fallacy of composition?

What I'm wondering is, how can one consider a community, government, law, or anything which exists by human consent or is composed of humans, in of itself capable of morality or lack therof?

[Kuroneko]

But isn't a community an amoral construct? It is made of humans capable of morality, but isn't saying "composed of moral creatures ==> composition is moral" a fallacy of composition? What I'm wondering is, how can one consider a community, government, law, or anything which exists by human consent or is composed of humans, in of itself capable of morality or lack therof?

Only if 'capable of moral action' is a non-expansive property, which you seem to assume but do not show. A community or government is certainly capable of action. One can interpret this as simply an aggregate of the actions of individuals within the community (esp. in the community case), but no reason presents itself as to why any individual should be absolved from all responsibility just because he or she is part of a group and is not the sole perpetrator--indeed, shared responsibility for shared actions, or failure to meet obligatory actions, is the most natural way of dealing with such situations. Alternatively, one can interpret this as the actions of a certain individuals with authority (esp. in the government case), but then it is even less clear why their actions would be incapable of having moral weight.

[Darth Wong]

In practice, this indeed happens all the time. When someone is robbed, his house insurance can repair the damage and replace the lost objects. All homeowners must have house insurance. Ergo, everyone does contribute a small amount of money to compensate the victims.

[Surlethe]

Only if 'capable of moral action' is a non-expansive property, which you seem to assume but do not show. A community or government is certainly capable of action. One can interpret this as simply an aggregate of the actions of individuals within the community (esp. in the community case), but no reason presents itself as to why any individual should be absolved from all responsibility just because he or she is part of a group and is not the sole perpetrator--indeed, shared responsibility for shared actions, or failure to meet obligatory actions, is the most natural way of dealing with such situations. Alternatively, one can interpret this as the actions of a certain individuals with authority (esp. in the government case), but then it is even less clear why their actions would be incapable of having moral weight.

A community or government, though, is only capable of action through individuals; thus, it would seem to me the responsibility for those actions (i.e., immoral laws carried out) would lie with those who acted, rather than with the community itself.

My problem with assigning guilt, specifically, to the community as a whole arises from the conclusion individuals who compose the community, yet did not act immorally, are still penalized as a member of the community; for example, the initial context of the quote in the OP is in affirmative action, defining white males as a community and assigning communal guilt for past racial discrimination. I, as a member of that group, apparently owe compensation to those against whom my predecessors discriminated; yet, I have never myself discriminated.

Is any of what I am writing making sense?

In practice, this indeed happens all the time. When someone is robbed, his house insurance can repair the damage and replace the lost objects. All homeowners must have house insurance. Ergo, everyone does contribute a small amount of money to compensate the victims.

That's an interesting example. So does the fact all homeowners must have house insurance imply the community owes compensation to those who have been robbed?

[Darth Wong]

That's an interesting example. So does the fact all homeowners must have house insurance imply the community owes compensation to those who have been robbed?

"Imply"?

It does far more than that: it is direct evidence that this is happening. One could, if so motivated, even obtain direct numbers from the insurance companies to show exactly how much each member of the community paid in order to compensate these people.

That is, in fact, precisely what insurance does: it helps victims of tragedies (including crimes) recover by pooling the resources of a vast community. People buy into it because they fear that the next victim of a tragedy could be them in some cases, and in other cases (eg- auto insurance, and home insurance in many areas) they are forced by law to purchase this insurance.

[Surlethe]

That's an interesting example. So does the fact all homeowners must have house insurance imply the community owes compensation to those who have been robbed?

"Imply"?

It does far more than that: it is direct evidence that this is happening. One could, if so motivated, even obtain direct numbers from the insurance companies to show exactly how much each member of the community paid in order to compensate these people.

That is, in fact, precisely what insurance does: it helps victims of tragedies (including crimes) recover by pooling the resources of a vast community. People buy into it because they fear that the next victim of a tragedy could be them in some cases, and in other cases (eg- auto insurance, and home insurance in many areas) they are forced by law to purchase this insurance.

I meant "imply" as in "is evidence of a moral obligation by"; but I understand your point: communities have passed laws requiring every person to take on the moral obligation (through payments into house insurance, in this case) to aid any homeowner who may receive damage to his home; or, people willingly participating in order to receive the benefits of others' obligations.