3 ms·
I probably should explain my position more fully. The cause of a result and the fault of a result are entirely separate concepts. I think of "cause" as anythi
by MereInterest 13y ago
I probably should explain my position more fully. The cause of a result and the fault of a result are entirely separate concepts. I think of "cause" as anything that, when prevented, would prevent the final result. By this definition, both the officer and the author caused the abuse and arrest.
However, "fault" is in the deviation from a perfect world that caused the result. The author, showing concern and asking about the well-being of another person, is not at fault for the abuse he received. The police officer, abusing his position, is at fault.
To apply these to your example of your stolen laptop, I would say that it was partially caused by you, but was not your fault.
The way that I read Gorbzel's comment as that both cause and fault were on the author, not just cause.
- waqf 13y agoThanks for explaining. I agree that there is a distinction between "cause" and "fault" as you describe. Gorbzel's comment is pretty blunt: for sake of argument, it basically amounts to "[Victim] is an idiot and should have known better, for his own sake". But to me it is very clearly an assignment of "cause" not "fault" in your terminology. I understand this from phrases such as "for […] his own well-being" and "to his own detriment", as well as the fact that it's phrased as "advice". These make clear that Gorbzel is saying that the victim erred from a self-interest point of view not a moral point of view.