I feel there is an important thing here but [setting the zero point] is either not the right frame, or a special case of the real thing, [blame and responsibility are often part of the map and not part of the territory] closely related to asymmetric justice and the copenhagen interpretation of ethics.
In the territory, bad event happens [husband hits wife, missile hits child, car hits pedestrian]. There is no confusion about the territory: everyone understands the trajectories of particles that led to the catastrophe. But somehow there is a long and tortuous debate about who is responsible/to blame [“She was wearing a dark hoodie that night,” “He should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign”, “Why did she jaywalk when the crosswalk was just 10 feet away!”].
The problem is that we mean a bunch of different things simultaneously by blame/responsibility:
Causality. The actual causal structure of the event. [“If she’d worn a reflective vest this wouldn’t have happened,” “If your left headlight wasn’t broken you’d have seen her.”]
Blame. Who should be punished/shamed in this situation. This question already branches into a bunch of cruxes about the purpose and effectiveness of punishment.
Responsibility. What is the most effective way of preventing such events in the future? [“If we passed a law that all pedestrians wear reflective vests it would halve incidents like this”, “How about we institute mandatory pedestrian-sighting courses for drivers, and not blame the victim?”]
People argue about the same event with different causal models, different definitions of blame, and different notions of responsibility, and the conversation collapses. Fill in your own politically-charged example.
Setting the zero point seems to be one “move” in this blame game [if the default is that all drivers take pedestrian-sighting courses, then you’re to blame if you skipped it. if the default is that all pedestrians must wear reflective vests, then you’re to blame if you didn’t wear one.]
I feel there is an important thing here but [setting the zero point] is either not the right frame, or a special case of the real thing, [blame and responsibility are often part of the map and not part of the territory] closely related to asymmetric justice and the copenhagen interpretation of ethics.
I’m interested in hearing more about what you meant here, if you’re up for digging into it.
In the territory, bad event happens [husband hits wife, missile hits child, car hits pedestrian]. There is no confusion about the territory: everyone understands the trajectories of particles that led to the catastrophe. But somehow there is a long and tortuous debate about who is responsible/to blame [“She was wearing a dark hoodie that night,” “He should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign”, “Why did she jaywalk when the crosswalk was just 10 feet away!”].
The problem is that we mean a bunch of different things simultaneously by blame/responsibility:
Causality. The actual causal structure of the event. [“If she’d worn a reflective vest this wouldn’t have happened,” “If your left headlight wasn’t broken you’d have seen her.”]
Blame. Who should be punished/shamed in this situation. This question already branches into a bunch of cruxes about the purpose and effectiveness of punishment.
Responsibility. What is the most effective way of preventing such events in the future? [“If we passed a law that all pedestrians wear reflective vests it would halve incidents like this”, “How about we institute mandatory pedestrian-sighting courses for drivers, and not blame the victim?”]
People argue about the same event with different causal models, different definitions of blame, and different notions of responsibility, and the conversation collapses. Fill in your own politically-charged example.
Setting the zero point seems to be one “move” in this blame game [if the default is that all drivers take pedestrian-sighting courses, then you’re to blame if you skipped it. if the default is that all pedestrians must wear reflective vests, then you’re to blame if you didn’t wear one.]