My analogy was designed to demonstrate the responsibility of an actor who has knowledge of a consequence of his/her behavior, whether or not the actor is in con

My analogy was designed to demonstrate the responsibility of an actor who has knowledge of a consequence of his/her behavior, whether or not the actor is in control of the consequence itself. In the event of a shamed child, I am indeed responsible (not guilty, that has a legal connotation that's undesired here) for a child's shaming if I am the one who acted, and the result of which was the shaming, regardless of other outcomes. Had I not acted, the child would not have been shamed. Therefore I am the responsible actor in the child shaming (not exclusively, obviously). You're apparently mixing both morality and legality, as well as what is happening vs. what ought to happen [0]. I am explicitly speaking in the realm of what is happening. You are responsible for the shaming of the child, the beating of the child, or the exposure of Joe Normal's loss of his job. Whether or not you were acting morally is an issue I'd like to address, but only once we've agreed on the premise that an actor is considered responsible for all direct consequences of his/her action. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem