You’ve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just don’t think the act/ommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We can’t go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesn’t take ownership, doesn’t make amends… then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.
You’ve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just don’t think the act/ommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We can’t go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesn’t take ownership, doesn’t make amends… then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.