Faulty assumption of responsibility by villains

[Shadeydm]

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.

Is the moral of this story that its ok to dance drunk and naked on a pool table in a biker bar? Or perhaps that its ok to wear Lady GaGa's meat suit into a lions den?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Let's take this to something a little less hypothetical. This actually happened to me yesterday:

I was walking into a supermarket. There, lying on the ground, folded up, is some cash. $7, to be exact. There is nobody in line of sight but a guy gathering up shopping carts, and he says it isn't his. All the cars in the lot are empty - if this was dropped by someone leaving the store (the likely scenario being someone fumbling with change, groceries and keys on the way to their car), they are now gone.

Am I a thief if (albeit a really petty one) if I walk off with that money in my pocket? Is this different than the wallet on the bar, and if so, how is it different? When is it, "I have the right to leave X behind, and it is still mine to come back to," and when it is abandoned for whoever finds it?

The obvious difference may be identification in the wallet. Let us assume, for the moment, that we are talking about a money clip, not a wallet - there's no ID to confuse the issue.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is the moral of this story that its ok to dance drunk and naked on a pool table in a biker bar? Or perhaps that its ok to wear Lady GaGa's meat suit into a lions den?

It IS OK in the moral sense- neither is inherently or universally immoral. Well...some may differ on public intoxication or public nudity, but at best, we can say they are amoral acts that have been made illegal in a given area. And usually, misdemeanor at that. OTOH, rape IS inherently immoral and is a felony.

The point is that if you do one of those things, you are responsible for the probable outcome, BUT being responsible for your actions does not mitigate others of the responsibility of theirs.

And a Lion's gotta eat.

 

[Morrus]

Or perhaps that its ok to wear Lady GaGa's meat suit into a lions den?

Lions can't commit crimes.

 

[Shadeydm]

Lions can't commit crimes.

Sadly the zoo is likely to turn around and kill them for it regardless.

 

[Morrus]

Sadly the zoo is likely to turn around and kill them for it regardless.

Possibly, but that's not really germaine. The point there is that an animal has no burden of responsibility, and cannot act immorally or commit crimes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sadly the zoo is likely to turn around and kill them for it regardless.

That's a safety issue for the keepers.

 

[Jemal]

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).

Thank you oh so very much for pointing out the difference between FAULT and RESPONSIBILITY. I was reading through the thread formulating my own response but when i got to this post I realized I had little left to say.
Bravo.