Abra said:
My argument is based on the following:
Empowerment = Responsibility.
I assume that by "empowerment" you mean something to the effect of "having the ability to affect the course of events".
If so, then you must admit that both parties had the ability to affect the course of events up until an instant before the impact.
And in fact, if we accept the idea that drunk drivers are physically impaired, the drunk driver would actually have
less ability to affect the course of events than the sober driver!
(I am soooooo bad!
)
Yeah that just wont work logically speaking.
Free will does not automatically become synonymous with blame. When I drive a car I understand that driving a car might lead to accidents. There is always the potential for that to happen when operating a 3000+ lb motor vehicle that is hurtling through space at upwards of 80 MPH. If an injury collision were to occur that might be my fault or it might not. You cant rightfully say that I take on some of that liability simply by being on the road. Unless you are just taking some sort of metaphysical approach and choosing to overlook the proper designation of liability altogether.
All I’m trying to say is that “blame” and “liability” are determined after the fact, that those determinations are based on evaluations of the “willingly causative” actions of the parties involved before the fact, and that the evaluative process involves including or excluding pre-fact actions based on rules set down by the agreement of the majority.
Simply put, blame is assigned to the drunk driver because he violated a law. Period. No other reason. (Well, more accurately, because he acted contrary to what others determined to be acceptable.)
Im taking the real world approach here.
People won't buy this concept unless you are quite capable of demonstrating its mundane applicability to their daily lives.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. And therein lies the biggest problem with it. By its very definition, it can only be demonstrated to oneself through one's own actions and observations. If person A demands that person B demonstrate it, person A is not taking responsibility (the "willing cause") for it. In other words, if we decide we're not to blame, then we haven't taken responsibility. Or: it can’t be proved that we are responsible if we deny having taken responsibility. Or: the only way to demonstrate that one is responsible, is for one to be responsible. (Remember that I’m using the before-the-fact “willing cause” definition of responsible, not the after-the-fact “assignment of blame” definition.)
My question was never addressed.
If I was the sole survivor of a plane crash, am I to blame for that circumstance arising?
Assuming you mean what I think you mean by “blame”, the answer is no.
The bottom line is that the “responsibility” I’m talking about is a self-determined acceptance of the results of one’s actions, whereas “blame” is an other-determined evaluation of acceptable conduct. The two are completely different.
So really, it seems to me that the definition of responsibility is at issue. So here’s how I see the difference between responsibility and blame:
Responsibility is assigning “cause” to oneself.
Blame is assigning “cause” to someone else.
