So he has no responsibility for the decisions he made, up to and including the final one?
Yes, MIT's actions may have had influence. Or they may have hastened the inevitable - a person who makes this choice is not untroubled to begin with, and it's never about just one thing.
Ultimately, it was his choice in the end. The responsibility is his.
- If the murderer's mother had refused to have sex with the murderer's father, the victim would be alive today.
- If the train driver had had a sudden impulse to stop his train, the suicide could not have taken place.
- If he had subscribed to the protection racket scheme, his family would not have been harmed.
Responsibility is finer than causality.
Organizations have no conscience and no "human rights". Kicking an organization for bad judgement is cool.
Again - the mentality that leads to suicide does not develop in isolation. It is not "weev has picked on me and I am a loser and have no choice or other way out". That may be back-breaking straw, but it's not the underlying issue.
There are a host of contributing factors that can add up to this - so while it's great when we have a face to assign to The Bad Guy in these cases, and it's a perfectly natural response... it's seldom the correct one.
What I think is not debatable, unless you think humans are emotionless automatons who cannot be influenced by the treatment of others (a viewpoint seemingly being espoused by several here), is that bullies can be held partially morally^ accountable for the suicides of their victims.
^ I am not saying legally accountable.
You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.
> You might not think what Aaron did was morally wrong or deserving of negative repercussions, but others might reasonably disagree.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing in the slightest. If you think that is what this discussion is about, then I have to wonder what exactly you have been reading.
Either way, I don't think either of us is ever going to convince the other of anything on that score, so it's probably best to agree to disagree on it.
His death shouldn't be seen so much as a cause and effect so much as a wake up call that acting in the way MIT, JSTOR, and the government did isn't right and is hurting people in ways we don't necessarily pay attention to or care about when it's just some small news item about a trial.
IF A is responsible for X THEN B is not responsible for X
is false, in general.
Responsibility does not mutually exclude. It is often arranged that responsibilities do not overlap, but this is an organisational expediency. It is not a moral principle.
So saying "the responsibility was his" as if that somehow means that no-one else can have any responsibility is wrong.
Even if Aaron was still alive, the things MIT did would be no less wrong, so let's bring the focus back to that.
So as we do bring focus on back to it, I only ask that we do so without clouding the issue by branding them as murderers for their wrong actions.
MIT could have stopped of all this by doing what JSTOR did.
No, he has the same responsibility a raped woman has.
She could opt to NOT dress provacately, after all.
/s
Did you you ask his psychiatrist and he told you what his, (a self admitted depressive's) "amount of agency" was at the prospect of being thrown in jail and paying a hefty fine (plus legal expenses)?
This playing both sides (MIT/Aaron) is just another way of "blaming the victim".
And I don't think a person commiting suicide is less serious to rape.