The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.
This heuristic probably derives partly from the (potentially useful) idea that “good behavior” has to be a function of what you know; “doing the best you can” always has to be understood in the context of what you have/haven’t learned.
It may also arise from a heuristic that says, if you’re involved in a bad situation, you have probably done something wrong yourself. This may be useful for preventing common forms of blame-dodging, much like anti-mafia laws help arrest kingpins who would otherwise not be directly liable for everything done by their organization.
However, this ends up rewarding ignorance, and punishing people who are doing as much as they can to help (see article for examples; also see Asymmetric Justice).
Other common problems with blame.
People often reason as if blame is a conserved quantity; if I’m to blame, then the blame on you must somehow be lessened. This is highly questionable.
A problem can easily have multiple important causes. For example, if two snipers attempt to assassinate someone at the same time, should we put more blame on the one whose bullet struck first? Should one be tried for murder, and the other be tried merely for attempted murder?
“That’s not how responsibility works, Professor.” Harry’s voice was patient, like he was explaining things to a child who was certain not to understand. He wasn’t looking at her anymore, just staring off at the wall to her right side. “When you do a fault analysis, there’s no point in assigning fault to a part of the system you can’t change afterward, it’s like stepping off a cliff and blaming gravity. Gravity isn’t going to change next time. There’s no point in trying to allocate responsibility to people who aren’t going to alter their actions. Once you look at it from that perspective, you realize that allocating blame never helps anything unless you blame yourself, because you’re the only one whose actions you can change by putting blame there. That’s why Dumbledore has his room full of broken wands. He understands that part, at least.”
The concept of blame is not totally useless. It can play several important roles:
Providing proper incentives. In some situations, it can be important to assign blame and punishment in order to shape behavior, especially in contexts where people who do not share common goals are trying to cooperate.
Fault analysis. When people do share common goals, it can still be important to pause and think what could have been done differently to get a better result, which is a form of assigning blame (although not with accompanying punishment).
Emotional resolution. Sometimes an admittance of guilt is what’s needed to repair a relationship, or otherwise improve some social situation.
Norm enforcement. Sometimes an apology (especially a public apology) serves the purpose of reinforcing the norm that was broken. For example, if you fail to include someone in an important group decision, apologizing shows that you think they should be included in future decisions. Otherwise, making decisions without that person could become normal.
However, I find that blame discussions often serve none of these purposes. In such a case, you should probably question whether the discussion is useful, and try to guide it to more useful territory.
Copenhagen interpretation of ethics.
This heuristic probably derives partly from the (potentially useful) idea that “good behavior” has to be a function of what you know; “doing the best you can” always has to be understood in the context of what you have/haven’t learned.
It may also arise from a heuristic that says, if you’re involved in a bad situation, you have probably done something wrong yourself. This may be useful for preventing common forms of blame-dodging, much like anti-mafia laws help arrest kingpins who would otherwise not be directly liable for everything done by their organization.
However, this ends up rewarding ignorance, and punishing people who are doing as much as they can to help (see article for examples; also see Asymmetric Justice).
Other common problems with blame.
People often reason as if blame is a conserved quantity; if I’m to blame, then the blame on you must somehow be lessened. This is highly questionable.
A problem can easily have multiple important causes. For example, if two snipers attempt to assassinate someone at the same time, should we put more blame on the one whose bullet struck first? Should one be tried for murder, and the other be tried merely for attempted murder?
Blaming things outside of your control. Quoting HPMOR, chapter 90:
“That’s not how responsibility works, Professor.” Harry’s voice was patient, like he was explaining things to a child who was certain not to understand. He wasn’t looking at her anymore, just staring off at the wall to her right side. “When you do a fault analysis, there’s no point in assigning fault to a part of the system you can’t change afterward, it’s like stepping off a cliff and blaming gravity. Gravity isn’t going to change next time. There’s no point in trying to allocate responsibility to people who aren’t going to alter their actions. Once you look at it from that perspective, you realize that allocating blame never helps anything unless you blame yourself, because you’re the only one whose actions you can change by putting blame there. That’s why Dumbledore has his room full of broken wands. He understands that part, at least.”
See Heroic Responsibility.
The concept of blame is not totally useless. It can play several important roles:
Providing proper incentives. In some situations, it can be important to assign blame and punishment in order to shape behavior, especially in contexts where people who do not share common goals are trying to cooperate.
Fault analysis. When people do share common goals, it can still be important to pause and think what could have been done differently to get a better result, which is a form of assigning blame (although not with accompanying punishment).
Emotional resolution. Sometimes an admittance of guilt is what’s needed to repair a relationship, or otherwise improve some social situation.
Norm enforcement. Sometimes an apology (especially a public apology) serves the purpose of reinforcing the norm that was broken. For example, if you fail to include someone in an important group decision, apologizing shows that you think they should be included in future decisions. Otherwise, making decisions without that person could become normal.
However, I find that blame discussions often serve none of these purposes. In such a case, you should probably question whether the discussion is useful, and try to guide it to more useful territory.