5 ms·

the example of the drunk woman in the bad part of town, she is responsible only for increasing the probability that that she would be raped, but she is not resp

by mburney 16y ago

the example of the drunk woman in the bad part of town, she is responsible only for increasing the probability that that she would be raped, but she is not responsible for the rape itself. This assumes that it is easy to measure the probability of possible risk vs. possible benefit for every action that an individual makes. I'd say that something like that is very difficult to do, given that our desires don't always coincide with what is objectively rational. Of course we could decrease the probability of bad things happening to us if we stay at home most of the time and don't break any rules/norms, but that would rule out acting on many of our desires.

mseebach 16y ago
The problem with the rape-example is that it's overly idealized - it's a tautology: If you're asking to get raped, then, yes, you're asking to get raped. But you're not. The majority of street-rapes (the actual majority of rapes are between people who already know each other) aren't of people "asking for it", it's of people who maybe didn't take all the precautions they could have, but all-in-all were just in the wrong place in the wrong time. And then it's not so simple - I don't think very many would think that a girl who walked three blocks alone deserved to get raped, even if it could have been avoided by taking a taxi or walking with a friend.
- lukifer 16y ago
  No one ever deserves to get raped (except perhaps a rapist, but that's another debate). At the same time, someone who gets drunk by themselves in a bad part of town has to take responsibility for that choice, that it's more likely to lead to getting mugged/stabbed/raped, etc. That does not mean the event is their fault, because no event has a singular cause. Moreover, accepting a small piece of that responsibility does not in any way absolve the transgressor, nor does it imply that the victim "deserved" it. Let's take a less visceral example: the tires on my car are somewhat worn, but not yet dangerously bald. My wife is driving on a rainy day, slowing down for the road conditions, but not by very much. The car skids and crashes into a tree, resulting in only minor injuries but a totaled car. Is it my fault for not being more vigilant on the tires? Her fault for not driving slow enough? No one's fault, just an unfortunate act of God? The answer to all three questions is "yes". Many couples would argue until they're blue in the face over who is at fault, until one gives up and backs down. The reality is that we both contributed to the situation, which potentially could have happened anyway. Acknowledging our personal contributions does not absolve the other party of theirs, nor does it mean the event is not simply an unlucky happenstance of the wrong time and place.
lukifer 16y ago
This is an excellent point. The whole thing becomes recursive pretty easily, at which point all of life succumbs to the halting problem. Most of the time we have to take our best guess and hope for the best. Still, when attempting to learn from the past, usually after more information has become available, assessing how one did or did not affect those probabilities can be highly valuable in making better guesses in the future.

by mburney 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

The problem with the rape-example is that it's overly idealized - it's a tautology: If you're asking to get raped, then, yes, you're asking to get raped. But you're not. The majority of street-rapes (the actual majority of rapes are between people who already know each other) aren't of people "asking for it", it's of people who maybe didn't take all the precautions they could have, but all-in-all were just in the wrong place in the wrong time. And then it's not so simple - I don't think very many would think that a girl who walked three blocks alone deserved to get raped, even if it could have been avoided by taking a taxi or walking with a friend.

lukifer 16y ago
No one ever deserves to get raped (except perhaps a rapist, but that's another debate). At the same time, someone who gets drunk by themselves in a bad part of town has to take responsibility for that choice, that it's more likely to lead to getting mugged/stabbed/raped, etc. That does not mean the event is their fault, because no event has a singular cause. Moreover, accepting a small piece of that responsibility does not in any way absolve the transgressor, nor does it imply that the victim "deserved" it. Let's take a less visceral example: the tires on my car are somewhat worn, but not yet dangerously bald. My wife is driving on a rainy day, slowing down for the road conditions, but not by very much. The car skids and crashes into a tree, resulting in only minor injuries but a totaled car. Is it my fault for not being more vigilant on the tires? Her fault for not driving slow enough? No one's fault, just an unfortunate act of God? The answer to all three questions is "yes". Many couples would argue until they're blue in the face over who is at fault, until one gives up and backs down. The reality is that we both contributed to the situation, which potentially could have happened anyway. Acknowledging our personal contributions does not absolve the other party of theirs, nor does it mean the event is not simply an unlucky happenstance of the wrong time and place.

lukifer 16y ago

This is an excellent point. The whole thing becomes recursive pretty easily, at which point all of life succumbs to the halting problem. Most of the time we have to take our best guess and hope for the best. Still, when attempting to learn from the past, usually after more information has become available, assessing how one did or did not affect those probabilities can be highly valuable in making better guesses in the future.