• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is it always wrong to blame the victim?

Well, I'm sympathetic to determinism, but we live in a world with a distinct impression of free will, and of people being able to do good or bad things. Even if determinism is true, we live as if we have free will, and as if there is good. The Winner, would you really be happy to slap a little girl in the face and take her lollipop, believing that you were not to blame? Or do you only not do so because of the consequences?
 
Yerg said:
The Winner, would you really be happy to slap a little girl in the face and take her lollipop, believing that you were not to blame? Or do you only not do so because of the consequences?
Click to expand...
Why would I be happy to do such a thing, if I know, that doing this will only cause misery? I actually don't even have thoughts of doing such things. ^^
This is actually called being mindful (understanding).
Now for me to reach this state of mindfulness, does also take all sorts of different causes. Starting from the beginning of time and one of the 'more near to the "end"' of causes, at this moment, being born into this world.
 
Why wouldn't you want to cause misery? If nothing's evil, how can it be wrong to do anything? What are you mindful of/what do you understand?
 
Yerg said:
Why wouldn't you want to cause misery? If nothing's evil, how can it be wrong to do anything? What are you mindful of/what do you understand?
Click to expand...
Ok, I see what you want. You want to go into semantics. ^^
It's actually very simple:
I do not want to cause misery, since I have experienced it for myself and know, it's not good. Instead I would prefer to act kind and compassionate, because again, I have experienced, that those ways of being bring joy into this world.

I'm trying to be mindful of my actions. If one becomes deeply aware of his own motives, which often can be ego-driven, one begins to understand the unwise decisions one has and they automatically get swapped by wiser ones. :) That's mindfulness.
For example, someone gets mad at you and shouts at you. Of course the ego's reaction would be to 'defend' itself and shout back trying to shift the blame to the other person.
But when you are mindful of what's happening (understanding), you could react a lot different. You would understand, that there's no real need to 'defend' your ego and you could deal with that other persons misery with a balanced calm mind, kindness and compassion.
 
I'm not talking semantics at all. I'm asking what the motivation for not causing misery is. It can't be because it's evil to do so, because you've banished evil from your ontology.
I believe there is in essence no evil deeds.
Click to expand...
I do not want to cause misery, since I have experienced it for myself and know, it's not good.
Click to expand...
These two statements are mutually incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Isn't "not good" equivalent to "evil"?

You seem to want to attribute all human actions to cause and effect, and thus to eliminate personal responsibility. If this is so, it cannot be good to be mindful, or understanding, because there is no good.
 
Yerg said:
These two statements are mutually incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Isn't "not good" equivalent to "evil"?
Click to expand...
No, they are not equivalent. At least not for me. 'Not good' as in unwise. If I know, that some action will cause misery, it's not good or unwise to take that action. Not evil.
The definition of evil for me insists of the evil actions having no cause. Like "someone is evil". I do not believe in this, since I know, that everything has it's reasons (cause and effect chain).
And I have come to understand, that every being deep down just wants to feel peace and joy. Even the most 'cruel' murderers you could think of. Often the problem is just their ways of reaching it. A lot of humans are very messed up and do not really understand what they are doing. Some people call it insanity.

I suggest you this little documentary - http://btjunkie.org/torrent/The-Dha.../6812876a6e0c20596a3826bac0608427b1acfb59a7c3
 
The definition of evil for me insists of the evil actions having no cause
Click to expand...
That seems a very odd definition. As you say, no action is uncaused; your definition seems to automatically rule out the possibility of evil. If I choose to kill a person for the raw sexual thrill, on your account this is not evil, because the action is caused (by my murderous desire to get my rocks off. That is certainly at odds with the way most people understand the term "evil".

If I know, that some action will cause misery, it's not good or unwise to take that action.
Click to expand...
I thought you said that no-one is responsible for their actions? How, then, can it be good (or not) to do something, given that you have no choice?
 
Yerg said:
That seems a very odd definition. As you say, no action is uncaused; your definition seems to automatically rule out the possibility of evil.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's how most people actually define evil. If they actually saw the causality, they couldn't and wouldn't say, that someone is evil.
There is no pure evil being. But many can seem evil, if you only see them superficially, no doubt.
I thought you said that no-one is responsible for their actions? How, then, can it be good (or not) to do something, given that you have no choice?
Click to expand...
I haven't said no-one is responsible for their actions. But I'm also not saying that they are. If a person has been considered insane by other people, we agree, that that person is not responsible for his actions. That's the same way I look at people, who do not understand, what they are doing (even tho most of us might consider that person sane).
Good or bad aren't probably the best words, since they insist on judging actions. That was not my intention, but clearly you thought, it was. I would use wise and unwise instead. Maybe those are a bit more neutral for you to understand, what I mean.
 
Yes. That's how most people actually define evil. If they actually saw the causality, they couldn't and wouldn't say, that someone is evil.
There is no pure evil being. But many can seem evil, if you only see them superficially, no doubt.
Click to expand...
People are free to define their terms however they want. The way you define evil makes it impossible that it could ever occur. I really don't think that the common conception of evil rests on a lack of causality. For instance, child abusers often have a history of being abused themselves. Most people know this, and yet consider child abuse evil.

Why does there have to be a "pure evil being" for there to be evil in the world? There can be evil actions, even if there are no evil people.

Once you become to understand this chain of cause and effect, you become to see the futility of blaming anyone for anything they have done.
Click to expand...
That certainly sounds like you're saying that no-one is responsible for his actions. How can we be culpable if we are not free? Any "good" or "evil" actions I might perform are merely the latest episodes in a series of causes and effects that has been unfolding since before I existed, right?

Good or bad aren't probably the best words, since they insist on judging actions. That was not my intention, but clearly you thought, it was. I would use wise and unwise instead. Maybe those are a bit more neutral for you to understand, what I mean.
Click to expand...
The concept of wisdom also rests on value judgements. To me, it seems as if you are re-introducing the concept of good/evil by stealth. How can a person be wise if there is no good? How do you define wisdom without reference to value? Why should a person behave wisely, if not because it's the right thing to do?
 
Yerg said:
How can a person be wise if there is no good? How do you define wisdom without reference to value? Why should a person behave wisely, if not because it's the right thing to do?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there is no good. I was just saying, that good and bad may not be the best words to describe, what I really mean, since they refer to judging actions.
You can define wisdom without reference to value with your own experience.
If one acts "wisely", because "it's the right thing to do", that's just some learned intellectualizing. I wouldn't call that wise. I would call it following some made up rules.
But there's another way to acting wise - out of your own experience. Knowing, from your own experience, what your actions will cause (misery or joy for example).
Even if ones intention was sincere compassion, but the result was a disaster (for example a doctor doing his best trying to help a patient, who dies in the process). What really matters is the purity of the intention.
 
If one acts "wisely", because "it's the right thing to do", that's just some learned intellectualizing. I wouldn't call that wise. I would call it following some made up rules.
But there's another way to acting wise - out of your own experience. Knowing, from your own experience, what your actions will cause (misery or joy for example).
Even if ones intention was sincere compassion, but the result was a disaster (for example a doctor doing his best trying to help a patient, who dies in the process). What really matters is the purity of the intention.
Click to expand...
Why is it wise not to cause misery or to bring about joy? What makes those things desirable? You haven't got rid of value at all. You say that we shouldn't act wisely because "it's the right thing to do". Why, then, should we be wise? Isn't it just a result of impersonal cause and effect anyway? It seems to me that you've just renamed the good.
 
Yerg said:
Why is it wise not to cause misery or to bring about joy? What makes those things desirable?
Click to expand...
My own experience of misery and joy. If one knows, how misery feels, I don't see, why could one genuinely want others feel it. And why would one not want others to feel joy.
If we look at it at the level of ego only, we could see reasons, why one would feel the need to cause misery for others or even for oneself. But that is seeing life from a very superficial perspective - not understanding.

You say that we shouldn't act wisely because "it's the right thing to do".
Click to expand...
Again, that's you twisting my words. I have never said that. I'm just saying, that is not the wisest way to act and I believe there is a wiser way to acting wise. ;)
 
If one knows, how misery feels, I don't see, why could one genuinely want others feel it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I'm saying. When one experiences misery, they know that it is not good, and they desire not to want others to feel it because it's wrong to do so. You know that joy is good, and want others to feel it because that, too, is good. We don't find misery to be offensive to our wisdom, it's offensive to our morality. When the Doctor you spoke of acted wisely, we judge him to be wise because he brings about the good.
If one acts "wisely", because "it's the right thing to do", that's just some learned intellectualizing. I wouldn't call that wise. I would call it following some made up rules.
Click to expand...
That suggests that there is some other, "higher", motivation for acting wisely, and that "it's the right thing to do" should not be the source of our desire to be wise. So, what is this reason, this "wiser way to acting wise"?
 
ebola, i've tried but my brain just can't process this. Could you re-phrase it in a simplified format? I'm having a slow day...
Click to expand...

I was likely unnecessarily obtuse. ;)
What I meant is that the definition of victim-hood necessitates that associated ill fate be caused by phenomena outside of actions executed by the victim (at least when we are talking about "victims" in the realm of efficient causes). If one determines one's fate by one's own actions, one is no longer a victim per se. However, the ethical weight that we give to others' actions when evaluating them seems a great deal more nebulous and ambiguous.

ebola
 
i think that in some cases the victim is definitely to blame. If you expose yourself to a known risk without preparing for it, then its your fault when something happens. In cases where there was little to no reason to suspect something would occur, then no its not the victims fault.

I know somebody who hold the extreme opposite opinion thought. This guy lives in constant fear and paranoia, suspicious of everybody and everything. When we go to the store hell go back to make sure he locked his car five times before we get inside, even thought were only going in for a minute or two and theres absolutely nothing of value in his car.

I usually always left my car unlocked all the time, which drove him insane. He was always sure somebody was going to steal shit if you left your car unlocked, however we live in the suburbs, in the safest city in america. I routinely not only leave my car unlocked, but the windows down as well. Of course there was rarely anything besides a skateboard and an old stereo in there. But since i wouldnt "listen to reason" and lock my car, this guy stole shit out of my car to teach me a lesson. Hell never admit it but i know he did it while he was drunk.


Ridiculous.
 
sure it is. we should not have to live in constant fear of what might happen if we don't lock our doors, or if we walk home alone. we should not have to always protect ourselves against the ill intentions of others.

this is not at all the same as the example of the smoker/drinker/fast food junkie who develops a heart condition, because that guy is not a victim. if anything, he's a perp. his actions were the DIRECT cause of his illness. the guy that was burgled did NOT cause the burglery just by leaving his door unlocked. that was caused by the person who chose to enter his home and take his things. similarly, the girl didn't cause the rape by walking home drunk. that was entirely the fault of the guy who chose to get his rocks off with an act of violence.

people ought to do what is right just because it's right, and not do what is wrong just because it is wrong.

"but," you say, "that's not how things are. we know we live in a world with jerks that will steal and rape." maybe that's because they get too much slack. we're over here blaming the victim instead of cutting off hands and dicks.
 
ebola? said:
What I meant is that the definition of victim-hood necessitates that associated ill fate be caused by phenomena outside of actions executed by the victim (at least when we are talking about "victims" in the realm of efficient causes). If one determines one's fate by one's own actions, one is no longer a victim per se.
Click to expand...

That's the way I've always understood the implications of the word "victim".
 
voxmystic said:
this is not at all the same as the example of the smoker/drinker/fast food junkie who develops a heart condition, because that guy is not a victim. if anything, he's a perp. his actions were the DIRECT cause of his illness. the guy that was burgled did NOT cause the burglery just by leaving his door unlocked. that was caused by the person who chose to enter his home and take his things. similarly, the girl didn't cause the rape by walking home drunk. that was entirely the fault of the guy who chose to get his rocks off with an act of violence.
Click to expand...

Yep. I see we're in agreement on this one voxmystic.
 
Ok, bnw, voxmystic, what do you make of the following scenario:
A man goes out into town for an evening drinking. On purchasing his first pint, he pays, and then leaves his wallet on the bar. He returns, several hours later, to collect his wallet, and is shocked to find that it has been stolen. He says "I should be able to leave my wallet here and trust that no-one should steal it". Is he not at fault here?
 
i dunno Yerg -- turn it around -- if YOU found a wallet lying on the bar, would you take it and say it's the guy's fault for leaving it there? i know what i would do........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top