Assigning blame (philosophical explorations inspired by the main list)

[lupinesque]

Luke wrote on the main list:

> How can one
> be "more" at fault, anyway?  Isn't fault a black-and-white concept?
> You either are at fault or you aren't--and while two people can 
share
> blame in the sense of both being at fault simultaneously, they do 
not
> share blame in the sense that the two might share a pie, taking
> differently-sized portions: this person with 60% and this person 
with
> 40%.  Blame, as I see it, just can't work like that. 

Hm.  Yes, there is a simple black-and-white question of "fault" and 
"blame."  My friend and I have a falling-out and one of the reasons is 
that I called her an asshole.  OK, so I am at fault, regardless of 
what she did.  But the question of who is *more* at fault is still 
valid, and IMO, potentially important in resolving our conflict.  Two 
scenarios:

(a) She is fifteen minutes late to a lunch date with me.  When she 
arrives I am very angry and say that she's an asshole.  Result of 
conflict:  we aren't talking to each other.

Analysis:  she is partially at fault for the conflict--she shouldn't 
have kept me waiting--but what I did is a lot worse than what she did, 
and totally out of proportion.  I am more at fault.

(b)  She tries to seduce my boyfriend.  When I find out about it, I 
call her an asshole.  Result of conflict:  we aren't talking to each 
other.

Analysis:  I am partially at fault for calling her an asshole--I 
shouldn't do that--but my response is positively beatific considering 
the enormity of what she's done.  She is more at fault.

What do you think?

Amy Z
who, you notice, is not touching the way more controversial question 
of who's more at fault in the Ron/Harry argument