Name

Professor

Course

Date

Trouble with blame

Should victims and perpetrators be excused by circumstance, natural constraints, and circumstances alike in acquiring responsibility?

The scale on whether victims should be held responsible for retaliating and inflicting injuries on perpetrators or causing death has always shifted more so in favor of the latter considering the various campaigns supporting this notion. The chapter “who is to blame?” at one point argues that both the victim and the perpetrator should be given an equal chance in determining responsibility because there is no excuse for reacting in an inappropriate way (10). To put this into perspective, there are cases of women who have retaliated against their abusive husbands, causing them extreme injuries or death. In one argument, this lot reacted in such a manner because the perpetrators pushed them to an apparent limit. And being victims, this was the appropriate cause of action. However, because they have committed an action that violates the definition of virtue-ethics, they are not devoid of responsibility.

The reading uses Aristotle’s definition of virtue, which does not offer space for any excuse. A victim in reacting the way they did choose the destructive way rather than the virtuous way and so hold responsibility. So if the victim can be excused because of certain factors such as previous history, circumstance, coercion, and natural constraints, perpetrators should also be considered for factors that altered their normal character. Society has always been straight to condemn the victim without considering the underlying issues that might have resulted in whatever kind of action. However, in the same way, victims are judged for acting in a violent manner in response to abuse, perpetrators should not be offered the chance to present an excuse because they had a choice to pick the better path. However, when a perpetrator has abused the victim, there should be no inquiries into their contributions to the actions of the later. The perpetrator should not act in an abusive manner regardless of any actions of the victim that would supposedly trigger them to act in such a manner. Siding with Aristotle, any action that is outside the accepted character should not be excused because there was more than one choice on how to act.

Are perpetrators responsible for their acts simply because they possess the required free will to be blamed?

The chapter begins with a narrative that ends with a statement that perpetrators should be blamed and carry responsibility for their wicked acts because they are go-betweens of their own actions. However, the debate on whether a perpetrator should not be blamed because their actions may not be theirs is presented soon after. In the horror story, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the alter ego of the cruel Dr. Jekyll may not be his own. Some arguments suggest that his acts were predetermined by male sexuality, a culture of male violence, drug and alcohol addiction, the cycle of abuse, and biological history. These are the kinds of arguments that base the actions of an individual on impulses rather than deliberations. According to philosophy, the perpetrator always had the opportunity to turn the other way. However, perpetrators always have excuses as to why they acted in a certain way, and no one initially takes responsibility for committing an atrocity.

The argument against blaming perpetrators include them being victims of abuse in their history. With such a history, there is a possibility that the perpetrator can be eligible for lesser blame (60). Just as victims tend to deal with their situation through self-blame, perpetrators engage in violent and abusing behavior to mask their own trauma (64). By picturing the perpetrator as a victim when they were at their most vulnerable, defeating, and injured, we seek to offer sympathy and not condemnation. ‘

Also, an act that originates from passion and impulse does not carry as much weight as one that is seen to be premeditative. Acting in an abrupt manner without contemplation resonates with how many of us have done something without much thought and lived to regret it. This lessens the perception of the perpetrator as harboring an evil soul. It is apparent from this discussion that perpetrators cannot be blamed simply because they had a choice.

Is self-blame a fight against oppression?

Some psychoanalytic views consider self-blame problematic, a symptom, and a negative response to anxiety, some psychologists consider using self-blame to master the traumatic experience it enacts (26). Anna Freud advances a theory that suggests identifying with the aggressor as a means of maturity, and the initial step towards a journey of achieving conscience. By identifying with the aggressor, one develops the ability to master instinct. Some authors view self-blame and self-hatred among women as a tool in the fight against oppression (34).

It is hard, however, to comprehend how feeling bad inside is beneficial in the wake of abuse. Some claim that self-blame is a tool against a female’s rage (28). The death instinct might explain why the woman represses their rage as a natural reaction to being attacked and instead encourage their own guilt. Also, because of the vulnerability of the victim and their dependence on the perpetrator, they choose to is more preferred than self-development. The victim would rather be demeaned and abused but still, maintain a certain relationship. The pain of the abuse and the badness of an element that preserves the relationship. And because the relationship is not trusting, there is no room for self-development.

What is the role of onlookers in distorting the truth about perpetrators and victims?

Cases of abuse have been sources of excitement for onlookers who want to create a narrative that fits their own amusement, especially with media coverage of these cases. If the victim is presented in a manner that befits their perception, there is no room left for presenting a case to the contrary. In other sense, victims become idols adored in their misery. On the other hand, perpetrators are not given a chance to prove themselves any different. Although the enthusiasm of onlookers does not necessarily distort the truth about victims, they limit the possibility of a counter-argument that would prove true in the long run.

Without regard to the victims and other people suffering a similar ordeal, disown a victim if they fail to meet a curtained predefined threshold. The victim is supposed to have an appearance that suggests vulnerability, and when a case has one that cannot fit these criteria, the onlookers become indifferent (89). To fulfill their urge to present an idol in the story, they usually elevate the status of the perpetrator from that of an evil person to a victim. It does not matter whether the victim is in their right minds, better educated, or favored by undeniable evidence. Flipping the script makes the plot even more interesting. The reaction of onlookers in this manner discourages victims from coming out because they feel they do not fit the profile and sometimes doubt themselves whether they are victims or not. Media outlets show pictures of vulnerable people that are sometimes staged to capture them at their weakest swaying the opinion of onlookers a decision that goes decision makes such as the jury who are programmed from the beginning to condemn the perpetrator.

Works Cited

Lamb, Sharon. The trouble with blame: Victims, perpetrators, and responsibility. Harvard University Press, 1999.