Assigning blame (philosophical explorations inspired by the main list)

[cindysphynx]

I am somewhat hesitant to say anything on this subject, because I 
have such fixed notions about these things.  Hey, I'm a lawyer.  
Blame is what I do for a living, if you think about it. <bg>

Now, setting that aside as best I can, here are a few thoughts and 
reactions.  And to prove that I'm a lawyer, I'll incorporate by 
reference all of Luke's disclaimers about not meaning to preach, 
etc.  

*******************

First of all, I'd say that setting and context matter a great deal.  
Blame in a business context is very important, as the woes of Enron 
show us.  Fault is apportioned all the time, so there's not a whole 
lot to discuss there.

Blame is different and more interesting in interpersonal 
relationships, though, so I'll stick with that.

Amy wrote:

> > But the question of who is *more* at fault is still valid, and 
>>IMO, 
> > potentially important in resolving our conflict.
> 
Luke responded:

> Why is it potentially important in resolving the conflict?  This is 
> an honest question--I seriously can't figure when it truly would 
>be.  
> As best as I can see, regardless of the actions on either side (and 
> hence the "proportion" of blame, if you believe in such a thing), 
the 
> response to end the conflict is identical: seek reconciliation by 
> forgiving the other person and asking forgiveness for anything you 
> did wrong.  I don't understand how the question of who is more at 
> fault changes that.
> 

Using Amy's two examples, I can understand to a limited extent how 
one of the participants might be interested in assessing fault or 
blame.  Ultimately, the actors have to decide how to move forward, as 
Luke noted, by perhaps seeking reconciliation.  But they also have to 
decide *whether* to move forward.  And that is where blame comes in.

For instance, two people in a bad marriage eventually reach the point 
of deciding whether to stay together.  It might be rational for each 
spouse to consider how much they are to blame for the situation.  In 
other words, an aggrieved spouse might say, "The marriage is awful, 
and it is all his fault because he wasn't faithful."  Several things 
flow from that assessment, like the fact that the aggrieved spouse 
might decide that fixing the marriage will depend largely on whether 
the errant spouse is willing to change.  Blame assessment might, 
therefore, be a useful tool in deciding how much future time and 
energy to invest in a particular relationship.  (BTW, I am aware that 
marital troubles are usually not the fault of just one partner, but 
it makes an interesting example, so I used it for that reason).

Luke again:

> You see, I often wonder if the reason we have this notion of 
> comparative morality, or specifically in this case comparative 
>blame, 
> is primarily out of an effort to rationalize our own actions.  We 
> want to acknowledge that one person is more at fault so that we can 
> say that what we did is "not as bad", because what they did 
> was "worse".  

Mmmm, maybe, but there's nothing wrong with that.  It is only fair 
that our actions (and the consequences of them) should be viewed in 
light of all of the circumstances, including the wrongdoing of 
others.  Obviously, it is OK to kill someone in self defense (legally 
and morally, in our society).  In that case, we are essentially 
blaming the victim for his own demise by blaming him for the 
circumstances that led to the murder.  

Luke again:

> 
> Too often we try to understand others through empathy.  Empathy is 
a 
> wonderful tool, but it has its limits.  At some point in our lives, 
> we will come across a situation in which empathy is not sufficient 
to 
> understand the actions of someone else.  No matter what their past 
> experiences are, we think, there is no way that we could ever 
> understand how it led them to do something horrific as *that*.  At 
> this point, empathy has failed us.  So what do we have left?
> 
> Compassion.  The fact of the matter is that understanding someone 
> else through their experiences is impossible--those experiences 
will 
> *never* be ours.  So we use empathy only as a means of goading our 
> unwilling selves into compassion, but compassion is still the end 
> goal, and even when empathy fails, compassion must still be striven 
> for.
> 

Although I agree that compassion is a laudable end-point, it isn't 
the only legitimate end-point.  At times and with sufficient 
justification, it is just fine to walk away and end the 
relationship.  That is neither a display of empathy nor compassion.  
Maybe it is an act of self-preservation, I don't know.  I should note 
that walking away is not mutually exclusive of forgiveness, in my 
opinion.  One can forgive, but decide that enough is enough, I 
think.  And one way of making that decision is to decide whether the 
other person was more to blame than you are.

I hope that makes sense.  Philosophical discussion isn't really my 
strong suit, but I like to try anyway.

Cindy