How much should someone be blamed for the involuntary?

[fakename]

For instance, if someone is by nature clumsy, then should he be blamed for being clumsy or should he be excused since some people are just clumsier than others?

 

[Pug]

I’m assuming you are talking about clumsiness that matters somehow, like hurting someone with clumsiness?

I do think you can blame the clumsy person if they fail to accept their limitations and as a result attempt to operate machinery beyond their competence and kill someone as a result. They don’t get to say, well, I’m naturally clumsy and this allows me to do seriously risky things without anyone ever blaming me for the result.

I see no point in blaming someone for simple clumsiness that they cannot help, like that their hand shakes so when they eat food it usually spills. *Perhaps *consider buying utensils that work better, or change the eating location, or buy polyester clothing, etc. But perhaps that would only cause them great alarm and shame, so it is only a perhaps.

 

[Della]

For instance, if someone is by nature clumsy, then should he be blamed for being clumsy or should he be excused since some people are just clumsier than others?

No disability, no matter how great or small, should be considered blame-worthy. It’s certainly no sin. As Pug pointed out, though, knowing our limitations we shouldn’t push doing things out of pride or misplaced sense of independence.

For instance, I have difficulty lifting things others would find easy–such as a gallon of milk. And pouring from a gallon container is quite hard for me to do. So, I don’t attempt it unless I’m sure I have a way to make it as easy as possible for me to do, but I wouldn’t try to hold the container in the air, try to pour, and just hope I could hold onto to it knowing that I could drop it at any moment. That would be irresponsible of me. Is that the kind of thing you had in mind?

 

[fakename]

No disability, no matter how great or small, should be considered blame-worthy. It’s certainly no sin. As Pug pointed out, though, knowing our limitations we shouldn’t push doing things out of pride or misplaced sense of independence.

For instance, I have difficulty lifting things others would find easy–such as a gallon of milk. And pouring from a gallon container is quite hard for me to do. So, I don’t attempt it unless I’m sure I have a way to make it as easy as possible for me to do, but I wouldn’t try to hold the container in the air, try to pour, and just hope I could hold onto to it knowing that I could drop it at any moment. That would be irresponsible of me. Is that the kind of thing you had in mind?

Yes I did have these things in mind and thanks for the answers.

I would also like an opinion on a related question. Say that one attacks a dog that is attacking you. Obviously the dog attack was involuntary but does that make the human’s self-defense involuntary too? Unless the human’s response was instinctive, I don’t think that the response is involuntary, since people are not merely not blamed for protecting themselves but are also acclaimed for it.

 

[Della]

Yes I did have these things in mind and thanks for the answers.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

I would also like an opinion on a related question. Say that one attacks a dog that is attacking you. Obviously the dog attack was involuntary but does that make the human’s self-defense involuntary too? Unless the human’s response was instinctive, I don’t think that the response is involuntary, since people are not merely not blamed for protecting themselves but are also acclaimed for it.

There is nothing wrong in reflexively defending oneself from an animal attack. We have the right to defend ourselves even when humans are attacking us. What the Church tells us, and most civil laws uphold, is we should do no more harm to the attacker than necessary to stop it/him from attacking us. If the attacker is killed as a result, it must not be because we wished to kill, but as a result of the severity of the attack on us.

A current case in my area of the country demonstrates this point. On Thanksgiving day a man shot and killed two teens who had broken into his house. His shooting them was all right since he has the right to defend his life and property. But then he shot them both multiple times to be sure they were dead. That wasn’t morally or legally acceptable and he has been charged, rightfully so, with second degree murder.

 

[dshix]

I’m assuming you are talking about clumsiness that matters somehow, like hurting someone with clumsiness?

I do think you can blame the clumsy person if they fail to accept their limitations and as a result attempt to operate machinery beyond their competence and kill someone as a result. They don’t get to say, well, I’m naturally clumsy and this allows me to do seriously risky things without anyone ever blaming me for the result.

I see no point in blaming someone for simple clumsiness that they cannot help, like that their hand shakes so when they eat food it usually spills. *Perhaps *consider buying utensils that work better, or change the eating location, or buy polyester clothing, etc. But perhaps that would only cause them great alarm and shame, so it is only a perhaps.

+1 That’s probably the best way to put it.

P.S. Gratz Della on your 11 thousandth post!

EDIT: Oh look, it’s MY 500th! lol.