Faulty assumption of responsibility by villains

[Janx]

Here's another crazy philosophical TV thread.

This time, inspired by NPR and the Diane Rheem show's discussion today on healthcare costs and the snippet I heard about a doctor who spent 15 minutes on removing a mole, and 90 minutes talking somebody out of Suicide.

Here's how that though chains down to today's topic. In Japanese culture, it is thought that when you save a man's life, you are responsible for that life. An example is, if a psychiatrist a suicidal person off a ledge last year, and that person then goes on a killing spree this year, the psychiatrist is responsible for those deaths.

Frequently in fiction, during the bad guy monologue he'll throw in some threat that if the good guy doesn't do what he wants, the bad stuff that's going to happen will be the hero's fault.

I see this kind of logic as trying to pass the blame, not take responsibility for your own actions or a form of survivor's guilt.

If you try to do a good deed (save a man's life) and that man later does bad things, the bad man is at fault, not you. This would be why Batman captures bad guys, not kill them. He's not responsible for them escaping three issues later and doing more evil.

if the bad guy says if you don't pay him, he'll blow up the city and you'll be responsible for the deaths, he's trying to pass off the responsibility. The bad guy is the one putting those lives at risk, had he not armed the bomb, nobody would have been in any danger.

When the bad guy sets up a dual threat, and the hero has to choose Gwen Stacy or the city of New York, it's not the hero's fault that Gwen Stacy died. He didn't setup the situation, and he did the best he could with what he had.

I do see a corner case, as it were. If a bunch of kids bully somebody in school, and that kid goes postal, who's at fault? The bullies, or the postal kid? In the case of Columbine, I'm still inclined to blame the postal kids. If they really wanted to go postal and be "righteous", they would have ambushed just the kids who bullied them. Whacking a whole school puts them back in the blaming everybody but themselves category*.

*During the long road trip to MN last week, our conversation wandered to Columbine, and our consensus was, the shooters were likely victims of bullying, and some of the kids they killed were probably their tormentors and "had it coming." That doesn't justify going on a shooting rampage, but it does shift cause and effect and blame/responsibility a bit. Bystanders to the incident see a group of loners going bad, but anybody who's been bullied sees the pattern, and you can bet nobody's going to stand up and say "those kids had it coming."

Anyway, that's my current chain of thought. To sum up, it is total bull crap that the hero is somehow responsible for the evil that men do.

 

[Dioltach]

Frequently in fiction, during the bad guy monologue he'll throw in some threat that if the good guy doesn't do what he wants, the bad stuff that's going to happen will be the hero's fault.

I see this kind of logic as trying to pass the blame, not take responsibility for your own actions or a form of survivor's guilt.

Actually, I think they don't say things like that to pass on the guilt, but rather to emotionally blackmail the good guy into doing what they want. Obviously the bad guys are portrayed as not having a conscience, because otherwise they wouldn't set the situation up like that, but they know that the good guys do. And then they use it to their own benefit.

 

[GSHamster]

What about the reverse direction?

For example, does Iago bear any responsibility for the actions of Othello?

 

[Umbran]

Frequently in fiction, during the bad guy monologue he'll throw in some threat that if the good guy doesn't do what he wants, the bad stuff that's going to happen will be the hero's fault.

I see this kind of logic as trying to pass the blame, not take responsibility for your own actions or a form of survivor's guilt.

For the villain, it is not so much trying to pass the blame, as make the hero feel blamed. The point is to motivate the hero to some action (or inaction).

Also, note that blame is not a limited resource, and that for a given action there can only be X blame-units doled out. That the villain can be blamed does not mean the hero cannot be blamed.

 

[Janx]

What about the reverse direction?

For example, does Iago bear any responsibility for the actions of Othello?

Beats me, I never saw Othello.

Though Sound and Fury does an excellent encore performance of Desdemona, a 2 minute rendition of her plight.

 

[Janx]

For the villain, it is not so much trying to pass the blame, as make the hero feel blamed. The point is to motivate the hero to some action (or inaction).

Also, note that blame is not a limited resource, and that for a given action there can only be X blame-units doled out. That the villain can be blamed does not mean the hero cannot be blamed.

Hmm, Blame Units....excellent idea....

In the stereotypical situation, the bad guy tries to play on the hero's feelings of guilt if he fails to suceeed. Thoughts like "if only I had been faster, I would have saved her" strike me as a variant of survivor's guilt. However, in my view, the Hero who is trying to do the right thing is never at fault if he fails. Kind of a Good Samaritan protection clause.

As such, a bad guy trying to pre-emptively cast that guilt on the hero before the bad thing has happened falls under the same protection clause. Hero can't be blamed for what the Villain set in motion, even if he fails to stop him. Note, that by fail, I mean attempted to stop him but did not succeed, rather than did not take any meaningful action in the pursuit of saving the day.

Is there an example situation (that I'm not thinking of) where the Hero has some culpability/blame/responsibility DESPITE trying to do the right thing?

For ex, Peter Parker getting his Uncle killed is partly Peter's fault BECAUSE he didn't do the right thing. It wasn't even that he accidentally did something that setup the tragedy, Peter had the very obvious opportunity to do the right thing and he chose to ignore it*. Thus, his story is NOT an instance of what I'm looking for as an example situation.
* the original movie and comic make it where Peter witnesses a robbery and physically let the obvious bad guy go who later kills his uncle. It is a little more watered down and contrived in the new movie.

 

[Umbran]

Is there an example situation (that I'm not thinking of) where the Hero has some culpability/blame/responsibility DESPITE trying to do the right thing?

Well, there's trying to do the right thing, but doing it badly.

Say, a guy tries to rob a liquor store at gunpoint. A cop tries to stop the robber, and shots are exchanged. Some bystanders are hit - some of the stray shots come from the cop. The cop was trying to do the right thing, but is responsible for the shots he fired. If he does this badly enough, he can and will be prosecuted for manslaughter.

 

[frankthedm]

The cop was trying to do the right thing, but is responsible for the shots he fired. If he does this badly enough, he can and will be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Sure, that is possible. But the robber is getting nailed for murder 1 because the way the Felony Murder Rule works in some US states.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, that is possible. But the robber is getting nailed for murder 1 because the way the Felony Murder Rule works in some US states.

That is beside the point, though. The fact that the robber goes to jail does not prevent blame falling on the cop, too. It isn't a zero-sum game, remember.

The fact is that "trying to do the right thing" is not itself much of a protection. The road to Heck is paved with good intentions, and all that. If you, as a hero, want to avoid all blame, you have to do more than *try*. You generally have to do the best anyone could have reasonably done under the circumstances.You have to make the right choices, and execute your actions well, before folks will generally absolve you of blame. Otherwise, there may be the question of whether the situation would have resolved better without your participation.

 

[Croesus]

If you try to do a good deed (save a man's life) and that man later does bad things, the bad man is at fault, not you.

Other posters have addressed your core question, so I'd like to add something about fault and responsibility. Note, I stole the following example from an article on ethics that was published years ago.

Say I walk into a bar, order a beer, pull out my wallet to pay for it, set my wallet on the counter and drink my beer. A bit later I decide to go to the restroom, but leave my wallet on the counter. When I come back, my wallet is gone. Who's at fault?

The person who took my wallet, of course. No one forced them to steal it. No one put a gun to their head and made them steal. They had a choice and chose to steal. Open and shut - they're at fault.

But...don't I bear some responsibility for what happened? After all, everyone knows you don't leave your wallet unattended in a public place. While I'm not at fault for the wallet being stolen, I did make it possible. So I have to accept responsibility (not fault) when assessing what happened.

Applying this to your example of heroes and villains, the villain is clearly at fault for any heinous acts he commits. But the hero ends up feeling responsible, because the hero's actions made those acts possible. Should the hero feel guilt over this? Probably not (unless, as Umbran points out, he does things so badly he makes the situation worse). But human beings are not rational and we often confuse fault and responsiblity.

In general, I tend to view a situation where I'm at fault as something I need to make amends for. A situation where I'm responsible, on the other hand, is something I need to learn from (so I don't do it again).