How much could debates about ';blaming the victim'; be avoided by simply taking the time to?

distinguish between questions of morality and questions of prudence.





If I burn dinner and decide to leave the doors open to air out my home while I go for a morning stroll, having also left the box my brand new stereo system arrived in out front for trash pick up, I have done nothing immoral. In a world where people behave ethically and follow the law, there would be no problem. And someone who burglarizes my home has committed a crime. I have not. That's the moral dimension and it's pretty straightforward.





But I have certainly been exceedingly imprudent. While people who take every possible precaution are also sometimes burglarized, what I did certainly did raise my chances of being victimized. A police officer would be quite right to advise me in the future not to leave my doors unlocked that way and not to leave packaging left from expensive purchases in plain view of the street. That's the prudential dimension and it is just as straightforward.





But it seems people get into trouble when they conflate the moral and prudential issues and end up with perfectly reasonable arguments being taken as in opposition.





Am I missing something here? Or is the disagreement as simple as a failure to recognize some basic distinctions?How much could debates about ';blaming the victim'; be avoided by simply taking the time to?
I think it's perfectly reasonable in those cases to blame and prosecute the criminal for the crime, yet at the same time ask the irresponsible and negligent victim ';what the **** were you thinking?';





That's not blaming the victim for the crime, that's blaming the victim for being a goddamn moron (which is not illegal).How much could debates about ';blaming the victim'; be avoided by simply taking the time to?
These two things are different.





A human is not a stereo, and is not a piece of pie to eat.





There is no excuse for raping anyone.
Imprudent people dislike being called ';stupid';, either directly, or by implication. And I realize that it does little good to tell someone AFTER the fact that none of this would have happened if they would have been smarter. It just adds insult to injury.








I understand that. What I don't understand is where you are giving general advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of some future crime in general, and people start to accuse you of ';blaming the victim'; simply because they are too lazy, or too stubborn, to take advice. Some people are just idiots. What can you do but ignore the stupid people?
Yes, you are correct in simple logic.
Still the criminals fault but also the victims fault for doing something stupid like leaving the door unlocked.











don't do stupid **** and stupid **** is less likely to happen to you.








Lets be honest here, a lot of the crime that happens to people in this world happens because those people make stupid *** decisions, I'm not defending crime, I'm just pointing out a fact.
You're missing the point... First of all, you have to place someone in the vicinity that would be CAPABLE of committing the crime... You could leave your windows open and your doors open, while you air out the house, and pass the big screen tv box, on your way for a walk. The chances of your house being robbed, is only if there is someone in the vicinity that wants to rob you.





The possibility also exists that you come back, and your home would be perfectly fine.





Same way with your second scenario... You could lock your house up tight as a drum, and you could still be robbed... Crime happens...but, only if there is someone in the vicinity capable and willing to commit the crime.





If you live in high crime area, you learn to take precautions, while lower/no crime areas are more lacks about precautions.
Yes


Very interesting


If every person in our society are all ethical, we don't really need to emphasize morality.


Because our society is full of unethical and immoral behaviour, so that's why we need to emphasize the morality very much.
But even the scenario of imprudence is subjective. For example, in my old city, leaving the door unlocked would have been imprudent for sure. However, my new town is far more safe and I've left the door unlocked or even open--because I feel safe and know the area. Is it imprudent? Perhaps when taking out other factors but the fact remains that my area has low crime. So, that said, if you had burned diner and left the doors open, were you in an environment where you felt safe? Where you surrounded by people you felt comfortable with (good neighbors)? So if that is the case, is it still as imprudent? Granted, it may have been better to have locked the doors, but you didn't feel the need to based on past experiences in your area.





The same can go for rape victims. Is it imprudent to let a person you somewhat know into your house? Perhaps, but you may feel safe because you ';somewhat'; know them or feel safe in your own home. Is it imprudent to get in a car with a new date or go into their house for coffee? Perhaps, but what if you had no pervious signs to fear that person? Is it imprudent to drink with your friends? Maybe, but what if you've drank with them before with no issues? Why would you feel unsafe?





What many people fail to realize is that although sometimes people make imprudent choices, at the time the people rarely see them as imprudent--because THEY FEEL SAFE. They feel safe in the neighborhood, in the house, with their friends, on a date.





So really, those asking others to ';always be prudent'; are asking others to always be afraid. To always mistrust, to always react in fear. While there are measures we can do to protect ourselves, even those measures can fail us. Or maybe the measures weren't drastic enough.





That does NOT mean the individual was a ';moron'; or ';stupid'; or even severely imprudent. It could mean they were naive, innocent, or felt no need for fear.





Remember, some 80% of rapes are by someone the victim knows. We're not talking a lot about women walking at night down a dark alley. Even stranger rapes often happen in parking lots or parking garages.





So how do we be prudent against that? Never go out at night or park a car? I think people need to put the blame where it belongs. On the rapist.
A lot of people do ';surface'; arguments that are not anchorerd in meaning, logic or even basic common sense. They can pivot on any word that causes an emotional outburst and hop from topic to unrelated topic. It is extremely frustrating to try to converse with these people. They just make no sense. These childish people usually lack adequate depth perception to have an adult conversation. You can notice a lack of focus when you stare deep inside their eyeballs and notice a shallow ';glazed'; look. They can't really be helped because they lack the tools of intelligence. The best thing to do is explain things in simple terms that they understand and then avoid serious discussion with them.





Here is all you need to know about crime and victimhood. It is wise to be prudent, and risky not to be prudent. But no matter the behaviour of the victim, it never absolves the criminal. A criminal is simply one who commits a crime, and anyone who commits crimes should be treated as a criminal.





So if someone wants to weave a surface argument explaining how the concepts of right and wrong are subjective, which makes them irrelevant, and that the criminal behaviour was only possible due to negligence on the part of the victim and therefore it was the victim's fault not the criminal's, then I suggest you tell them that committing any crime is a sin. It IS that simple.
you have raised a very good point and youre bold enough to do that.





a rapist or a burglar has committed a crime in his own right and should get a standard punishment regardless of whether the victim takes a precaution or not.





but at the same time the VICTIM must be MADE AWARE of the fact that (s)he did not take common sense precautions. it will also make other people become more aware and more able to protect themselves.





unfortunately when you do that the political correctness brigade jumps in and accuses you of blaming the victim.





in case of rape (specially gray rape) women need to be told and taught (to young females) that when they dont want sex they should REFUSE and when they say no they should mean it, their body language should compliment that.





its unfortunate that ppl simply dont want to understand your point.





Fereshte


';Remember, some 80% of rapes are by someone the victim knows. We're not talking a lot about women walking at night down a dark alley. Even stranger rapes often happen in parking lots or parking garages.';





yes and many of these are gray rapes.
Well said. But I've noticed that even if you're very careful to make it clear that you aren't blaming the victim, even if you're clear that you're advocating prudence and wisdom, people will still get angry and accuse you of blaming the victim and excusing the criminal. Some people just can't handle hearing someone say that people should be more careful, because they hate the thought that the victim has any responsibility for anything, even their own decisions.
I don't think YOU are making excuses for rape, but there are a LOT of people that will use the victim's actions to excuse the rapist and/or get the rapist out of receiving justice. It's not right/fair to use analogies like this when you are delving into the world of educating people on how to lessen their risks concerning rape, mainly because any of the crimes you would use in the analogies don't have a history of the victim's actions being used against them in the process of trying the perpetrator like the crimes of rape and sexual assault do.
If I walked up to this unfortunate person whose house had been robbed and said you were asking for it I would be blaming the victim. Even if I said it nicely saying ';you really should lock your house up when you leave'; I would still be saying that they shouldered some responsibility for the last crime.


I think that when should only ';blame'; the victim in order to help them stop it from happening again. What I'm trying to point out here is that when people say things like ';she was asking for it'; they don't intend to help the person. In fact the context in which its said sometimes like after a rape and what she was wearing it seems as though they want to partially exonerate the rapist and put more fault on the plate of the victim.This is pointless distasteful and pouring salt in wounds and should be avoided.
True there is a difference. Example. You leaving your windows open didn't give that person the right to rob you. But lets say someones goes and punches someone in the face. That someone who got punched in the face turns around and beats the crap out of the puncher. Is saying that the puncher started it victim blaming. There has to be a distinguishable difference between knowing when someone deserves no blame and when the victim contributed to the situation and if they hadn't done what they did the whole thing wouldn't have been blown out of proportion in the first place. No one ever has it coming when it comes to crime. But some people have made their owns beds and are getting the chance to sleep in it. You reap what you sow. Not saying victims deserve the blame or anything but if they contributed to the situation they need to held accountable and told what they could have done to avoid it. True Rape does not apply nor does murder.
I concur. We should be able to say that rape is never justified while giving a young woman advice on how not to place herself in compromising situations. If a man she not involved with call her to come to his place at 3:00 a.m. he tryin to make a booty call. If he rape her he in the wrong and deserve to be locked up but she could have saved herself some anguish by not goin over there at that ungodly hour. Women got good sense, intuition and need to use their instincts. Yes she was a victim but in this case she didn't have to be one.