Where does responsibility end?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

This is ripped from another forum I’m known to inhabit.

Here’s your groundwork:

Unnatural accident.

1.) An individual has been a victim of a terrible accident. There was no person responsible, only a series of natural events that are responsible for injury to the victim.

There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

An example: A woman is hospitalized for hypothermia, frostbite and exposure after being being caught in an avalanche while hiking and trapped under the snow for hours. There were many things she could have done which would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have dressed in snow-gear, carried safety equipment, checked the weather report and avalanche risk and hiked with a buddy, but instead she was out alone in sneakers and a hoodie for what she expects to be a short hike on a mild afternoon. Was she being responsible for her own safety?

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being a victim?

Without all three, it doesn't happen.

2.) An individual has been a victim of a violent crime. The perp is charged. There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

Example: This one is quite gray and murky, which makes it both ideal and a poor choice for an example. You can think of far more clear examples I'm sure.


A woman is raped by a popular man she knows only by his celebrity after she is invited to his hotel room by one of his employees. They are both intoxicated. He is arrested and is being prosecuted/held responsible for raping her. There were many well-known steps she could have taken, and several educated choices she could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have chosen not to drink to intoxication in a public place, she could have chosen to remain in a public area since her 'new friend' is a stranger, she could have had a friend come along with her.

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being victimized?

And that whole concept about being a rebel...

The real question is if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human attacker (v. being attacked by a mountain lion or tornado) removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?

Now that you know the specifics I ask again, if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human perpetrator removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?