fast
Contributor
Also, some of us will realize that the actions of the thieves who steal our cars and our actions leaving the keys in our unlocked vehicles are different actions, and crucially, that the moral blameworthiness of the thieves for their own actions is independent of any fault on our part. For example, when it comes to the thief blameworthiness, it doesn't matter if you left your keys in your unlocked vehicle out of negligence, or because someone else forced you to and the thief didn't know any of that, or because you're a police officer setting up a trap for a thief: the thief is exactly equally blameworthy for his action - namely, his attempt to steal your car, successful or not.
So, of course the thieves deserve full blame. Because it's not the case that there is a certain amount of blame to be distributed amongst the participants in a single action. Rather, there are different actions with different actors, and the blameworthiness of each of them for their own actions does not depend on the blameworthiness of the others for theirs.
Now, whether we would be morally blameworthy if we were to leave our keys like that is another matter. It seems clear that as long as we do not intend for anyone to attempt to steal our car, if we leave the car like that in a place where (like nearly all places) leaving the keys in an unlocked vehicle can be expected to raise significantly the chances of theft, we're being means-to-ends irrational, assuming no other relevant factors are at play (e.g., no one is forcing us). But do we have a moral obligation not to be means-to-ends irrational on the matter?
It depends. If - say - we depend on our car to do our job and make a living, and we have children in our care, then arguably yes, we would be morally blameworthy if we leave the keys like that. On the other hand, if we have no one in our care, and/or have billions of dollars and make money to buy several cars per hour, etc., it's more difficult to say. Maybe there is a general obligation to not make things easy for thieves? It's debatable. But in any event, regardless of whether we are morally blameworthy for our own action, the thieves are fully morally blameworthy for theirs.
But alas, in my experience, nearly everyone who considers matters like this fails to see any of the above.
I'm one of those rare few, btw.
What you're saying helps me to see the folly of my very own counter example. See, I do place full blame on those that do wrong, so even if I am negligent and that somehow contributes to the increased likelihood of theft, that does not mitigate the blame of the thief, as that's a wrong solely of his own doing despite my not making it more difficult; however, I can fully appreciate the anger one would have towards me, especially in a case where her child is kidnapped while in my care (where I'm not paying close attention). Even in absence of negligence on my part, no intellectually derived fact that the kidnapper is 100% fully and solely responsible will lessen the anger towards me for not paying extra extra close attention. This counter example is similar in vein to the car example where I do not leave the keys in the car yet park it in an unsavory area. We can see the "we could of done better" mentality even when no true blame belongs on me for the actions of another.
The fact still remains, an observation to be made, and it's to be made with the deliberate attempt to place no blame except for where it's due: full blame belongs solely to each party for what they did. While the thief is to blame for the theft, we can still observe the connection ... while the kidnapper is to blame for the kidnapping, we can still observe the connection, and when the officer is fully to blame for those particular wrongful shootings, we (well, some of us) can see and observe the relevance of the connection ... as it is so (oh so very so) that there would have been a lower chance of all those things happening we speak of: stolen car, kidnapped child, black man shot, drunk permiscuous girl raped.
The black man is to blame, but like you might say, the blame if any due is solely related to his actions and remains in no way blameworthy for the wrongful shooting, and so, we should place FULL blame on the officer for the wrongful shooting, for although it's true the shooting would likely had not occurred had he not run, it is also true (and very important) that the shooting would likely had not occurred had the officer not acted wrongly. Each party should be blamed only for the wrong they do.
The car owner is to blame, but not for the theft. He is to blame for what he did, and what he did was leave his keys in the car, and if there is a charge for doing so, he should be charged for that and that alone (and blamed for that and that alone).
DEEP (and requires close reading):
If there is a twenty-five dollar fine for leaving keys in a car, then a victim of car theft would be guilty of shifting the blame by saying it's the car thieves fault while making the observation that had the car thief not stolen the car, events would not have transpired resulting in the car owner having to pay the twenty-five dollar fine; what he fails to realize is that while it's true he likely would not be charged had the thief not stolen the car, it's also true (and, again, very important) that he likely would not have been charged had he not done what he did, namely leave his keys in his car.
If the car owner can appreciate that and fully accept responsibility for his wrong doing (violating some actual law that says we are prohibited from leaving keys in a car), then I would ask those to consider the possibility that he is not blaming the car thief by merely making the observation that there is often a connection between our behavior and things that later happen.
RAMBLING mode begins:
When we send our girls out at night dolled up and they get drunk and naked and start telling strangers, "look what I got big boys," then yes, a rapist is fully to blame, and the rapist is fully to blame for exactly what the rapist did, and if someone says it wouldn't have happened had she been more reserved and it is therefore partially her fault, then that person is absolutely wrong and blaming the victim; however, it is not blaming the victim merely for making the public service observation that black men are endangered of getting shot when they jump out of a car and run at the end of a high speed chase. <perhaps it's a bit strange how I interlace examples, but I'm trying to capture the essence of the theme such that particular examples don't take center stage and undermine the point>
ETA
The point is to say not all of us are blaming the victim.
We want to say, "don't run dumbass, put your tits in your shirt while drinking, grab your damn keys, and keep your eye on the kid." Sounds like four counts of victim blaming, but it's only victim blaming when you think it's their fault. I don't blame the victim for what the wrong doers do, but I'm sure as shit gonna have a good hit to miss ratio (prediction prowess) when stupidity bucks up against a world chock full of people that will do wrong.
Last edited:
