Posted by Thor (63.249.65.142) on February 11, 2002 at 23:02:08:
In Reply to: The Question of the Week posted by m1s1n on February 11, 2002 at 22:22:45:
IMHO we are responsible for the effects of our decisions to the degree that we knowingly take risks. But I don't think that it reduces the responsibility of other people. For instance, if you play in a construction area, you are responsible if you get hurt. If a girl is at a party and she gets drunk, then a man rapes her, it is almost completely not her fault. The man is 100% responsible for raping her and she is maybe 5% responsible for getting raped. Now, if a girl walks down a dark alley at 3am in a miniskirt and she's raped, the man is still 100% responsible for raping her and she is maybe 40% responsible for being raped. The degree to which we knowingly take risks or infringe on other people's rights is the degree to which we are responsible. And an event can have more than one aspect to be responsible for, allowing for more than 100% responsibility. In some obscure cases of rape I could see the the rapist being less than 100% responsible for raping someone, but normally it would be 100%.
-thor