Misplaced blame

[fast]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

 

[Metaphor]

I'll be the first to say it.

What is 'x'?

 

[fast]

I'll be the first to say it.

What is 'x'?

Didn't have any one thing in mind and didn't want examples to sway an examination of the logic.

 

[Arctish]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

Yes.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

Not exactly.

If a law is passed that says the costs associated with X will be borne by the general public, then you doing X after that law comes into effect will cost other people money, and they can legitimately blame you for it. Even if in the past you doing X cost them nothing, that situation has changed and you are expected to be mindful of the impact your actions have on others.

That doesn't say anything about whether requiring the costs to be borne by the general public is right or moral or necessary.

 

[KeepTalking]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

If you do X, and it costs other people money, then you have caused the situation that costs the other people money. Ultimately, you are to blame. You did X with the knowledge that it would cost other people money. Further expounding upon Arctish's post, X may still be the morally, and ethically right thing to do. Money is not everything.

 

[Bronzeage]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

The critical condition to resolve for this question is, where does the money go? Who or what receives the money spent?

Is this new cost to the neighbor some kind of government imposed fee or fine?

What real world scenario fits this model?

 

[dismal]

If a big bank or an auto company gets a bailout or a tax break I the taxpayer should blame the people in government who voted for it not the bank.

 

[untermensche]

When one lives in a harsh society with very poor social services and very little economic stability a person can become overly consumed with THEIR precious money.

 

[fast]

Yes.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

Not exactly.

If a law is passed that says the costs associated with X will be borne by the general public, then you doing X after that law comes into effect will cost other people money, and they can legitimately blame you for it. Even if in the past you doing X cost them nothing, that situation has changed and you are expected to be mindful of the impact your actions have on others.

That doesn't say anything about whether requiring the costs to be borne by the general public is right or moral or necessary.

That is so messed up. My actions would only cost you because of the law, so instead of laying blame at the feet of the cause, it's laid where no cost would be if not for the law. Yet, you say the blame is legitimate, and you say the impact is due to my actions.

 

[fast]

If I do X and doing X costs me money, and if doing X doesn't cost you money, then I'm not blamed for costing you money; however, if a law is passed such that my doing X ultimately costs you money, then I am blamed for ultimately costing you money when I do X.

However, it seems to me that it's misplaced blame since there are no instances of my doing X without the passed law that cost you money and only instances of you ultimately bearing the costs of my doing X with the passed law.

Therefore, even though you never bear any costs unless I do X, it is not my doing X that causes you to bear costs but rather the passed law.

If you do X, and it costs other people money, then you have caused the situation that costs the other people money. Ultimately, you are to blame. You did X with the knowledge that it would cost other people money. Further expounding upon Arctish's post, X may still be the morally, and ethically right thing to do. Money is not everything.

That is so messed up too. You should be angry at what truly gives rise to what is costing you. You should be like, "yo fast, had you not done what you did, I wouldn't have had to bear the costs, but i don't blame you because I know it's not your actions but rather the passed laws that created the financial obligations."

 

[Bronzeage]

If you do X, and it costs other people money, then you have caused the situation that costs the other people money. Ultimately, you are to blame. You did X with the knowledge that it would cost other people money. Further expounding upon Arctish's post, X may still be the morally, and ethically right thing to do. Money is not everything.

That is so messed up too. You should be angry at what truly gives rise to what is costing you. You should be like, "yo fast, had you not done what you did, I wouldn't have had to bear the costs, but i don't blame you because I know it's not your actions but rather the passed laws that created the financial obligations."

Wouldn't this depend on the nature of the law. What about your actions made a law necessary? Have you been committing some irresponsible act which was never prohibited because no one thought it was a real possibility?

You'll have to put some meat in this soup before you're off the hook for costing us some money. At this point, I'm pretty sure it's all your fault.

 

[fast]

That is so messed up too. You should be angry at what truly gives rise to what is costing you. You should be like, "yo fast, had you not done what you did, I wouldn't have had to bear the costs, but i don't blame you because I know it's not your actions but rather the passed laws that created the financial obligations."

Wouldn't this depend on the nature of the law. What about your actions made a law necessary? Have you been committing some irresponsible act which was never prohibited because no one thought it was a real possibility?

You'll have to put some meat in this soup before you're off the hook for costing us some money. At this point, I'm pretty sure it's all your fault.

Necessary eh.

Btw, no real world personal connection...just philosophizing.

The brother gets spanked by the parent when the sister misbehaves. If it happens enough, the brother will blame the sister.

 

[Bronzeage]

Wouldn't this depend on the nature of the law. What about your actions made a law necessary? Have you been committing some irresponsible act which was never prohibited because no one thought it was a real possibility?

You'll have to put some meat in this soup before you're off the hook for costing us some money. At this point, I'm pretty sure it's all your fault.

Necessary eh.

Btw, no real world personal connection...just philosophizing.

The brother gets spanked by the parent when the sister misbehaves. If it happens enough, the brother will blame the sister.

So, what we are talking about is a real injustice, not a philosophical metaphor. The real moral weight falls on the person who continues to misbehave, knowing someone else will be held responsible.

 

[Arctish]

Wouldn't this depend on the nature of the law. What about your actions made a law necessary? Have you been committing some irresponsible act which was never prohibited because no one thought it was a real possibility?

You'll have to put some meat in this soup before you're off the hook for costing us some money. At this point, I'm pretty sure it's all your fault.

Necessary eh.

Btw, no real world personal connection...just philosophizing.

The brother gets spanked by the parent when the sister misbehaves. If it happens enough, the brother will blame the sister.

Of course he will, especially if sister is an insufferable, selfish ass who knows perfectly well what will happen to her brother if she misbehaves and she does it anyway.

 

[fast]

Necessary eh.

Btw, no real world personal connection...just philosophizing.

The brother gets spanked by the parent when the sister misbehaves. If it happens enough, the brother will blame the sister.

So, what we are talking about is a real injustice, not a philosophical metaphor. The real moral weight falls on the person who continues to misbehave, knowing someone else will be held responsible.

We need not necessarily be talking about a misbehavior. If my actions would cost you without government involvement, then you would have a crow to pick with me--be my actions a misbehavior or otherwise, but if the critical player is the government that dictates that you will pay when I do X, then it seems to me that you'd be more interested in objecting to the governments dictation than faulting my actions.

Back to your comment about necessity:
It may be necessary to create a plan of action, but the subsequent option chosen is not therefore necessary. In other words, it might be necessary to do something, but what is finally chosen isn't necessarily necessary.

 

[fast]

Necessary eh.

Btw, no real world personal connection...just philosophizing.

The brother gets spanked by the parent when the sister misbehaves. If it happens enough, the brother will blame the sister.

Of course he will, especially if sister is an insufferable, selfish ass who knows perfectly well what will happen to her brother is she misbehaves and she does it anyway.

Perhaps we should beat the parents of inmates when [inmates] talk trash about demanding respect.

 

[Bronzeage]

So, what we are talking about is a real injustice, not a philosophical metaphor. The real moral weight falls on the person who continues to misbehave, knowing someone else will be held responsible.

We need not necessarily be talking about a misbehavior. If my actions would cost you without government involvement, then you would have a crow to pick with me--be my actions a misbehavior or otherwise, but if the critical player is the government that dictates that you will pay when I do X, then it seems to me that you'd be more interested in objecting to the governments dictation than faulting my actions.

Back to your comment about necessity:
It may be necessary to create a plan of action, but the subsequent option chosen is not therefore necessary. In other words, it might be necessary to do something, but what is finally chosen isn't necessarily necessary.

I'm going with the all your fault scenario, until you can produce a scenario which might have some chance of becoming reality, other than getting spanked because of something your sister did.

 

[Arctish]

Of course he will, especially if sister is an insufferable, selfish ass who knows perfectly well what will happen to her brother if she misbehaves and she does it anyway.

Perhaps we should beat the parents of inmates when [inmates] talk trash about demanding respect.

When you started this thread you deliberately left out real world examples so we would focus on the issues of responsibility and blame when a change in the law shifts costs from one individual to another, or from the individual to the group. Now you're stacking the deck with an example so extreme I doubt it's ever been implemented outside of North Korea.

Let's go back to the situation in which we don't know if the law in question is moral or just or necessary. We don't know if it does more harm than good, or more good than harm. We don't know how serious a situation the law is meant to address. We don't know if there are viable options. The law in a true neutral, neither good nor bad. Now the only question is, should Person A be blamed if his actions result in a cost to others when those acts did not result in a cost to others before the law was passed?

I think the answer is obviously yes. Whatever the situation before the law came into effect, that situation has changed. That act now carries a cost to others, and anyone contemplating performing that act should take that into consideration.

 

[fast]

Perhaps we should beat the parents of inmates when [inmates] talk trash about demanding respect.

When you started this thread you deliberately left out real world examples so we would focus on the issues of responsibility and blame when a change in the law shifts costs from one individual to another, or from the individual to the group. Now you're stacking the deck with an example so extreme I doubt it's ever been implemented outside of North Korea.

Let's go back to the situation in which we don't know if the law in question is moral or just or necessary. We don't know if it does more harm than good, or more good than harm. We don't know how serious a situation the law is meant to address. We don't know if there are viable options. The law in a true neutral, neither good nor bad. Now the only question is, should Person A be blamed if his actions result in a cost to others when those acts did not result in a cost to others before the law was passed?

I think the answer is obviously yes. Whatever the situation before the law came into effect, that situation has changed. That act now carries a cost to others, and anyone contemplating performing that act should take that into consideration.

How can you call the law a true neutral? I'm treating it as a third party.

 

[Arctish]

When you started this thread you deliberately left out real world examples so we would focus on the issues of responsibility and blame when a change in the law shifts costs from one individual to another, or from the individual to the group. Now you're stacking the deck with an example so extreme I doubt it's ever been implemented outside of North Korea.

Let's go back to the situation in which we don't know if the law in question is moral or just or necessary. We don't know if it does more harm than good, or more good than harm. We don't know how serious a situation the law is meant to address. We don't know if there are viable options. The law in a true neutral, neither good nor bad. Now the only question is, should Person A be blamed if his actions result in a cost to others when those acts did not result in a cost to others before the law was passed?

I think the answer is obviously yes. Whatever the situation before the law came into effect, that situation has changed. That act now carries a cost to others, and anyone contemplating performing that act should take that into consideration.

How can you call the law a true neutral? I'm treating it as a third party.

We know nothing about it. We don't know if we would judge it moral or just or necessary, so we can't say the effect it has is the result of something good or bad, right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary. It is impossible to judge.