The word "responsibility" has several meanings that are quite different.
1) "dependable" as in "a responsible person.
2) "willing cause" as in "assume responsibility for making sure something happens as planned".
3) "duty", as in "it is the responsibility of the cook to ensure that the food is tasty."
4) "blame", as in "he is responsible for the accident".
#2 and #3 are similar and could be confused. The difference is that with #2 the resulting actions are self-determined according to one’s own evaluation, whereas with #3 the resulting actions are pre-determined and require no evaluation or choice.
So when discussing “responsibility for” a car accident, the only relevant definitions are #2 (willing cause) and #4 (blame).
Now #4 (blame) is usually determined by something like “the last causative action that contributed to the condition”. The problems with that are twofold:
1) Determining what actions did and did not contribute to the state of affairs. Did your “willing cause” in being at that intersection contribute to the state of affairs? There can be no denying the fact that had you not been there, the state of affairs would not have included you being in the accident.
2) Assigning blame based on the “last causative, contributing action”. To me this is the biggest problem and the heart of the disagreement. The problem is that it ignores all contributing factors except one, when it is obvious that there are many, many contributing factors.
And even if you don’t accept that definition, any definition of “blame” is based on the principle that some actions contributed to the condition and some did not. And the problem is the same. It boils down to what actions you choose to assign as having contributed to the state of affairs.
It seems that Jeannie’s argument is (and correct me if I’m wrong here Jeannie) that both your actions and the other person’s actions, contributed equally to the state of affairs.
The only real difference is that your actions are acceptable to the majority, whereas the drunken driver’s are not.
So it would seem that “blame” is really a matter of majority rule, which seems to be borne out by simple observation of our society.
Thus, the “blame” viewpoint of responsibility is almost the exact opposite of the “willing cause” viewpoint of responsibility. Blame is essentially an other-determined assignment of having done wrong, whereas “willing cause” is a self-determined decision to do right. It is unfortunate that the latter can lead to the former through the capriciousness of our majority rule system.
(Wow! That was more of a rant than I intended to go off on.
)
That sounds fishy to me
If I go to work, minding my own business, and get run over by a drunk driver, the majority could rule that I'm to blame?
Just like that?
)
