When something goes wrong, the first thing most of us do is try to find out whose fault it is.
Why is the economy in such rough shape? Is it because of the president? The Congress? The corporations? The wealthy? Student test scores are down. Blame the teachers. Rape? Blame the way the victim was dressed. Poverty? Blame the poor. Suffering? Blame sinners, Satan, unbelievers (see also sinners), Original Sin. Unemployment? Blame illegal immigrants. Youth violence? Blame violent movies and video games. Your marriage is failing? Blame your spouse.
When something is wrong, it is quite sensible to try to figure out the cause. That’s the first step in solving the problem.
For example: People and animals are getting sick in a particular area. Why are they getting sick? The water supply is contaminated with toxic chemicals. Why is the water contaminated? A nearby manufacturing plant is spilling waste into the groundwater. Stop the contamination, problem solved.
Of course, it often isn’t that easy. The manufacturing corporation may fight back, refuse to comply, plead that it can’t afford an expensive filtration system. But at least you’ve figured out where the sickness is coming from.
It’s often not so straightforward.
A boy is constantly getting into fights on the playground. Can we blame violent films and video games? Many of his classmates watch the same films and play the same games but never get into fights. However, a little research into his background, and you discover that his father is a violent man who resorts to lashing out physically. He has been arrested for assault. His wife left him because of domestic abuse. He regularly hits the boy. So, you blame the father for the boy’s behavior.
But a bit more research reveals that the violence goes way back. The man’s own father was violent and abusive. And his father taught him that real men don’t take insults lying down; they get revenge. There is a longstanding family culture of using violence as a means to solve problems. Now who is to blame?
Part of the problem lies in the very language we are using. Think about it: “Who’s to blame?” as opposed to “What’s the cause?” The very word “blame” has a negative connotation.
There’s a moral judgment involved. It triggers a reaction: The one blamed feels the need to defend himself. He protests that it isn’t his fault. And he may be correct. One can be the cause of something without being blameworthy.
The father of the boy may have caused his son’s behavior (and the culture of violence around him probably reinforced the lesson), but he is no more to blame than the boy. His father caused him to see violence as a solution to problems.
You see this critical distinction all around us in public discourse.
A politician will attempt to demonize some group by saying they are to blame for some problem. The group may in fact have caused the problem but are themselves reacting to pressure from some other source. Perhaps they have been misled, trapped or are simply doing what they believe is right. Blaming them implies that we should feel anger and contempt toward them. Blaming absolves us of looking further and trying to see what other causes might be involved.
Our penal system is all about blame, also known as guilt.
When someone is caught in a criminal act, they are punished. All of this implies a moral judgment. Did the person commit the crime because he was desperate, struggling, saw no other choice? Did others pressure him into it? All irrelevant, unless others can be arrested and punished for being guilty as accomplices.
The justice system does not care about causes. Only guilt. Who to blame. And whoever is to blame deserves to be punished.
I’m not arguing against personal responsibility. We all have to take the chain of causality that brought us to a bad choice and declare that the buck stops here.
By understanding why we did something regrettable, we can begin to figure out how to avoid repeating the mistake. We can see that an action causes suffering. We understand why that action happened. We can take steps to prevent that action from happening again. We can also try to remedy the suffering caused by the mistake, make restitution if possible, and if appropriate, apologize.
None of this requires blame, guilt, moral condemnation or punishment. All it requires is recognizing cause and effect.
It requires recognizing that, most of the time, no one is to blame.
(Justine “Mel” Graykin lives and writes in
Deerfield, and practices freelance philosophy
on her website at justinegraykin.com.)