A behavior is no more ethical for a group than for an individual

Society, as a group, as a right to select who is allowed to participate in the society and punish those who have violated its rules. That is not and should not be an individual action.

an individual has the right to select who is allowed to participate in association with that individual, just as a society has the right to select who participates in association with that society.

your assertion about punishment, however, is about the point. I disagree, in a way. a society cannot punish; it requires people to do it.

i am not in a mental state to handle the complexities of this right now; i wish there were a way to save a draft comment and come back when i am feeling more eloquent and clear-headed.

By that argument, a society never takes actions, merely individuals. And collective responsibilities, governments, and organizations are just collections of individuals and have no identity onto themselves.

Which I find to be both true and a useless point of view. The state reserves to itself the right to (legally) imprison and, in limited cases, kill. The right is delegated to specific individuals (wardens and prison guards, executioners, police and members of the military), but the right exists at the state level, not the private level. If those individuals were to execute the same actions without acting under the authority of the state, they still would be illegal actions.

first, this claim says "a group" -- by which i was not intending to refer to society, but a group within a society.

arguably, you're actually talking about government or some other group designated by society as having special powers.

second, you're talking about legality. the argument some philosophers make in this regard is that the law shouldn't allow a group -- even one appointed, such as government or a branch of law enforcement -- to do what it would not be right for one person to do. the point of designating a group to do it is to remove the burden from individuals, for reasons ranging from bystander apathy to consistency of decision making. the idea being that if it is right for a group to determine that a man should die for his crime, the crime should be such that any person in the group would be "right" to kill him for it, even if ther eis a separate law saying that they should leave this work to designated professionals.

Posit an organization. Its bylaws state that a member can be expelled by a 2/3 vote of the membership. A vote is called, let's say an anonymous one to further muddle things. And Bob is voted to be expelled.

Who expelled Bob?

I see this claim as something that could mean one of two things. If we are claiming that the same rules of ethics apply to both individuals and groups, then I, reserving the possibility to change my mind on reflection, would mark Agree.

The other version I find difficult to put into words- perhaps that any given action has the same ethical value whether it is performed by an "individual" or a "group". The quotes are there to, for the moment, allow me to dodge the above discussion of whether the concept of a group even makes sense in the discussion.(cf Marphod's most recent comment.)

This entire concept is one that my view on has changed greatly over the years, from my high school agreement with Prof de la Paz in _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_ to an eventual disagreement with him, but one I find difficult to articulate. I have never before had a real opportunity to try.

My initial two paragraphs' question, by the way, is not meant to be illustrative nor a trick question, but one that I am genuinely interested in hearing people's thoughts on.

I think this is a great case for ethics / morals distinction. It is not moral for the group to do it unless it is moral for one member of the group to do it, but it can be ethical for the group to do it when it would not be ethical for a single member.

perhaps.

as for the "who expelled bob" question, i would say that the group expelled him. but i am not sure how much it weighs in this topic, because no one person *could* have expelled bob, so it may be meaningless to talk about whether it would have been ethical for them to do so.

further consideration may give some weight to whosoever called for bob's expulsion, if anyone; on the other hand, we could posit that every day the vote is called regarding each member of the group. what an odd organization...