WHO IS AT FAULT?
Valerie had to work late, so she told her son that he would have to travel home by taxi that day. He had to travel by himself many times before, and there was no reason to think that anything eventful would have happened that day. But something tragic did. By the time Valerie reached home there were already ten or twelve people outside of the house, all in somber mood. Her son was killed in a car accident while coming home from school. Valerie blamed herself for the death and for a long time could not be consoled. She kept saying that if she had put her son before her work and picked him up from school as usual, he would have still been alive.
Was Valerie at fault in any way?
Does she have a misguided sense of guilt?
Does anyone know for sure that her son would still be alive if Valerie came for him that day?
Is it probably the fault of the driver of the vehicle that the boy died?
Are there some things which just happen and are nobody's fault?
Is there something you should not feel guilty of, but you do feel guilty anyway?
Do others put blame on you unjustly?
Four months ago, Jacob's 12-year-old nephew was kidnapped. The child’s father, Jacob's brother-in-law paid the ransom and the child was released. Three months after it was Jacob's son they kidnapped, but the outcome was different. Jacob refused to comply with the demands of the abductors and his child was killed. The arrest of the kidnappers was no consolation for Jacob as he wrestled with the question, "What if? What if he paid the money? What if his brother-in-law did not pay four months ago? Who is to blame for his son's death? Now he has not only lost a son. His wife who wanted to pay the kidnappers could not bear the pain and left him. She always blamed him for her child's death. The memory of the kidnappers' last words still rings in her ear, "If you do not pay you will be killing your own child."
Is Jacob to be blamed for the child's death?
Should Jacob have paid the ransom?
Did Jacob's brother-in-law inadvertently encourage the kidnappers to abduct Jacob's son by paying them off four months ago?
Are the abductors the only ones responsible for the boy's death?
Were the abductors right in casting the blame for the boy's death away from themselves?
How damaging is it to one's future development for someone to habitually reject responsibility for one's situation?
Speaking to her mother, a young high school student was justifying her low mark in a history examination by saying that someone stole her textbook two months ago. She claimed that she could not revise her work because of this. However, copies of the book were always in the school library and were available to students.
Was the mother partly to blame for her daughter's low grades as she did not replace the textbook?
Was it the fault of the person who stole the book?
Who is responsible for the student's low marks?
Whenever his dad got angry and violent Doug would think that it was his fault. Perhaps because his father would always say that it was. The poor boy never understood why he was beaten or what crime he was guilty of, all he believed is what his father told him over and over again. That he was the cause of his father's anger and rage. It was never his father's fault.
Is Doug ever responsible for his father's feelings?
Is Doug ever responsible for his father's actions?
Can Doug's father blame his actions on nature? Can he say, "I cannot help myself; It is just how I am."
How important to our morals is it to accept the truth of our responsibilities?
Why do people often deny responsibility for their actions? Is it because of the following?
If a person acknowledges that something is his or her fault, then that person might fee! obliged to change some behaviour.
Someone accepting responsibility for a wrong may be obliged to fix it and might not be willing or able to do so.
Acceptance of responsibility forces one to change one's self-image. (If I did that then I must be a bad person.)
Guilt is simply an uncomfortable emotion.
Honesty is perhaps the foundation on which all virtue stands. There is a school of thought, which states that humility is the mother of all virtue. Perhaps any honest person who accepts the truth about himself or herself is bound to be humbled. The most important thing in dealing with the subject of morality is acknowledging the truth of what is right and wrong. If a problem is not perceived truthfully, it will not be positively dealt with in a proper manner.
People handle their own immoral behaviour in various ways. Here are some examples.
Some would recognize their shortcomings and try to alter their behaviour for the
better.
Others may recognize them as wrong but simply try not to think of them if possible.
Still there are others who would see them as wrong but simply not care.
Some again compare their behaviour with people who behave in a worse manner than themselves. They take comfort in thinking, “at least I am not as bad as that other person," but would never measure their behaviour by those who behave morally.
But perhaps the most devious and sad way people deal with their own immorality is to cast blame away from, or try to justify themselves. Even when some are apologizing, self-justification sneaks in as indicated in the following examples.
"I am sorry that I hit him, but he hit me first."
"I am sorry I ate all of the cookies, but I was hungry."
If we justify ourselves, is there a need for forgiveness? Can we receive mercy for doing something we had good reason to do? More importantly, would we see any need for change?
It takes a lot of courage to look at oneself honestly. It takes a degree of maturity to accept responsibility for one's actions and not divert that responsibility to another person or thing. It takes honesty (humility) to say, "I am sorry," and nothing else. Perhaps sometimes we fear truth because we feel that it would destroy our self-image. It is great to have a healthy self-image. It would be great to see ourselves as a people who have no personal shortcomings, but is it so bad to acknowledge that we may have quite a few? Would it not also be great to see ourselves as having the courage to accept the truth? Would it not be great to see ourselves as having the tenacity to try day by day to fight our demons? Which is wiser to do, seek to designate blame when something is wrong or spend our energies seeking a way to make it right?
There are an infinite number of situations one might find oneself in, but perhaps there are few and basic principles which govern moral actions. As much as one must guard against oversimplifying an issue, one must also guard against complicating things too much. One common ploy used to evade moral responsibilities is to introduce irrelevant matters to confuse things when considering moral issues. But as suggested in previous chapters, morality seems to be based on very few uncomplicated principles, for example, Truthfulness, Respect, and Compassion, and it has only one true teacher, Love.
Dr Henry was famous for his treatment of AIDS patients. In his practice he saw little children who were born with the disease. He saw people who contracted the virus from their spouses. He saw many who could not say which of their many sex partners gave them the virus. And he saw many who he knew would use the extra time which his treatment bought them, to have irresponsible sex and infect many other people.
The doctor always counselled his patients, advising the older ones in particular about their responsibility to do nothing which would expose others to the virus. "If this was a disease which only infected animals like the Mad Cow disease," he would say, "we could cull the infected animals. We certainly would not go to lengths to keep them alive for fear of spread of the virus, but we are not dumb animals. We know our responsibilities and we all are expected to bear them, otherwise we would be a bit like dumb animals and not worthy of any extra time which we may be given in this life."
A certain patient frankly told the doctor that since he already had the disease and had no more fear of contracting it, he would have unprotected sex with any and everyone he wished. Through the doctor's treatment this patient lived a long time with his disease. As he threatened, the patient used the opportunity of his extended life to engage in his reckless and promiscuous ways and infected many more people.
If the patient falls critically ill, would it be moral for the doctor to refuse him treatment and let him die?
Is the doctor culpable for the spread of the virus from that patient?
Is the doctor responsible for the behaviour of his patients?
If a 'God knows that a certain person is going to commit murder or any other serious crime, does the fact that God' does not take that person’s life make 'God' culpable?
Is any 'God' ultimately responsible for the evil in the world or are we, individually and collectively?
Activity: List some excuses you and others use to justify:
Not doing your homework
Not helping out with chores at home
Overeating or not eating enough
Lying
Watching too much television
Disobeying parents and teachers.