Faulty assumption of responsibility by villains

[Croesus]

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?

I would suggest many movies have something like this.

Example: Hero knows of a plot to cause mass mayhem, e.g., a building will be blown up, killing hundreds. He hops in his truck and races to the site. He arrives in time, defuses the bomb, saves the day. But...several other people are in the hospital because he ran red lights, sideswiped cars, and generally caused all sorts of chaos in doing so.

If the bomb goes off, he's not at fault for the innocent victims of the blast. But even if he stops the bomb, his actions caused the other injuries. He can claim extenuating circumstances to justify his actions, but they're still his actions, his choices.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I agree.

When I was in college, a particularly vile sexual assault happened at a biker bar in my school's city. They caught and convicted most of the bad guys, but not all. The ethical commonality to your example? The bar was a bar frequented by a particular motorcycle gang- common knowledge all over the city- and the victim was drunk and dancing naked on one of the pool tables. Her attackers committed a crime, no question, but it was precipitated by some truly idiotic behavior. The lamb was taunting metaphorical wolves, and the end of the story was easily foreseeable.

(And in fact, to hear it from both criminals and cops, simple inattention to your surroundings and "looking like a victim" is one of the ways targets of violent crime get chosen.)

A buddy of mine is a mental health care professional, and we were discussing that case, and he surprised the hell out of me. He said that in cases of sexual assault, one of the most improtant factors in determining whether one recovers a normal life- and how much- is whether or not they accept their share of the blame for the attack. Which is to say, if the victims believe their actions were not a factor, they continue to feel victimized because there is nothing they could do to change the result, and future victimization threatens beyond every turn in the road. They are helpless before the winds of fate.

In contrast, victims who accept blame for their own actions in the moments leading up to the assault are more likely to make a recovery because they then see they can take steps to prevent a future attack. IOW, accepting their contribution to their victimization empowers them to stave off future attacks. They can be proactive.

 

[Janx]

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).

I like this summary. It's short, which is a sign of wisdom and clarity.

In the software teams I run, we tend to use the words fault, blame, and responsibility interchangeably with regards to bugs. If a bug is found in code, the guy who wrote the code is at fault and has to fix it.

Generally, there's no spankings for bugs, our nomenclature is simply to associate a bug with the guy who should fix it.

 

[Mercule]

He said that in cases of sexual assault, one of the most improtant factors in determining whether one recovers a normal life- and how much- is whether or not they accept their share of the blame for the attack.

This actual meshes with the comment I was going to make. Each party is responsible for their own actions.

If you take the case of the picked on kid who goes postal, the bullies are responsible for their bad behavior, and they need to understand that they contributed to the problem. None of them are responsible for the actual murder, though. The guy who pulled the trigger owns that. There is a difference between lacking responsibility for an event and being innocent.

The rape victim didn't cause her assault. She did engage in some pretty stupidly unsafe behavior, however. Those guys may have eventually assaulted someone because they had it in them to do so. They own that. She put herself in a position that made her the target. (That's supposed to sound significantly different than "chicks in short skirts are asking for it". Hopefully it does.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's supposed to sound significantly different than "chicks in short skirts are asking for it". Hopefully it does.

I lost a friend over a discussion of that case because she felt I was saying just that.

Thing is, I do stand and live by my position. I'm a jewelry NUT, and hobbyist designer with some pretty cool pieces to my credit. If, in the pursuit of one of my other hobbies, I'm going to be venturing into a bad neighborhood, I don't wear ANY of my good stuff. I might not even wear a watch. All in a calculated effort to look less the target.

 

[billd91]

I agree.

When I was in college, a particularly vile sexual assault happened at a biker bar in my school's city. They caught and convicted most of the bad guys, but not all. The ethical commonality to your example? The bar was a bar frequented by a particular motorcycle gang- common knowledge all over the city- and the victim was drunk and dancing naked on one of the pool tables. Her attackers committed a crime, no question, but it was precipitated by some truly idiotic behavior. The lamb was taunting metaphorical wolves, and the end of the story was easily foreseeable.

(And in fact, to hear it from both criminals and cops, simple inattention to your surroundings and "looking like a victim" is one of the ways targets of violent crime get chosen.)

A buddy of mine is a mental health care professional, and we were discussing that case, and he surprised the hell out of me. He said that in cases of sexual assault, one of the most improtant factors in determining whether one recovers a normal life- and how much- is whether or not they accept their share of the blame for the attack. Which is to say, if the victims believe their actions were not a factor, they continue to feel victimized because there is nothing they could do to change the result, and future victimization threatens beyond every turn in the road. They are helpless before the winds of fate.

In contrast, victims who accept blame for their own actions in the moments leading up to the assault are more likely to make a recovery because they then see they can take steps to prevent a future attack. IOW, accepting their contribution to their victimization empowers them to stave off future attacks. They can be proactive.

You aren't going to win any friends in a lot of corners for that statement, I'll tell you that much. Some people really can't get past the idea that you're blaming the victim for the crime and, of course, are particularly strident about that with respect to rape. I largely agree with you and I'd love to see any actual research literature on it if there were any.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You aren't going to win any friends in a lot of corners for that statement, I'll tell you that much. Some people really can't get past the idea that you're blaming the victim for the crime and, of course, are particularly strident about that with respect to rape. I largely agree with you and I'd love to see any actual research literature on it if there were any.

I know- like I said above, discussing that San Antonio case cost me a friend. The victim was a drunk woman dancing naked on a pool table in a notorious biker gang bar. That's like choosing to wear Gaga's meat suit into a lion cage- the probable consequences are pretty clear.

But no matrer how forseeable it is that the outcome of your ill-considered actions is becoming a victim of criminal acts, that does not excuse the actors who chose to commit the crime.. AFAIK, there isn't even a jurisdiction in a Western nation that would let that be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The best you can do is, like Mercule did, break it down, clearly delineating what the parties did and what their individual responsibilities are. Because it isn't about blaming the victim, it's about making the victim aware of what they can do in the future to avoid bring revictimized.

As for the research, I don't have access to it- like I said, that's what my buddy in that field told me. While I found it stunning to hear, I have no reason to doubt him, and many to believe him.

 

[Kaodi]

The distinction between action and inaction, to a significant degree, is artificial. There is really only one thing: the decision of the actor; there is no dichotomy. When viewed this way, you might not want to always call the outcome fault, worthy of blame, but it is certainly forseeable consequence.

In the original OP, we are given the example of Spider-Man having to choose between Gwen Stacy and New York. We are told that when Spider-Man chooses New York, he is not responsible for Gwen's death. But this example takes the easy way out, and thus comes to the wrong conclusion about why Spider-Man is not to blame. If Spider-Man instead chose Gwen Stacy, and New York was destroyed, given that Spider-Man had a chance to stop it, he would be entirely his fault that he did not take that chance. He would not be culpable for New Yorkers murders, but he would be for their deaths. The second is less bad than the first, but it is still really bad. Similarly, he would be responsible for having not saved Gwen Stacy (though not for murdering her). But given the situation his, the reason we do not place blame on Spider-Man is because he obviously made the right decision. Making the right decision, while not enough to resolve you of legal sanction in all situations, is always going to cast you in a better light.

I cannot say I entirely understand the Japanese mindset, but if they are saying that you are responsible for that persons unforseeable actions, well, that is just so much worse for their ethical outlook (though that they are more likely to hold people responsible for forseeable consequences, then that may still be a plus for them).

In any case, I would say Iago was definitely complicit in Othello's actions. I think you could call him something of an "accessory to the crime" , or call him on "conspiracy to commit a crime" , or a related charge. In any case, should anyone decide to disagree with me, that is their prerogative, but my long-time signature affords me arbitrary levels of authority on this matter, so you will be wrong, .

 

[Kaodi]

A buddy of mine is a mental health care professional, and we were discussing that case, and he surprised the hell out of me. He said that in cases of sexual assault, one of the most improtant factors in determining whether one recovers a normal life- and how much- is whether or not they accept their share of the blame for the attack. Which is to say, if the victims believe their actions were not a factor, they continue to feel victimized because there is nothing they could do to change the result, and future victimization threatens beyond every turn in the road. They are helpless before the winds of fate.

I am going to have to remember this for future conversations (not necessarily bring it up, as I would rather not lose friends to badly wording something either), though anecdotes sourced to "a health care professional of a lawyer I know on an RPG messaged board" are not exactly that strong.

I think though that one should be careful to cut out the word "blame" entirely and just jump straight to "if they do not accept that had they acted differently it may not have happened" . Certainly wordier, but far more diplomatic I think.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Naivete is not a moral or legal failure. Theft is both. No, you have no blame. You DO have the right to leave your wallet on a bar temporarily; you so fundamentally, legally, morally possess that right. There is no part of moral or legal prudence that attaches the blame to you.

Yes, it's naive. No, your naivete is not even vaguely an excuse for the criminal.

No, you are not responsible for society's ills. The thief must take full responsibility for the event. He cannot pass of his responsibility with a "he tempted me" excuse. He did what he did. It's 100% him, and 0% you.