Blame Culture 47

[ScottyUK]

zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.

"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"

So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[ajack1]

Personally I think it is a good thing that I am now warned that a cup of coffee may contain hot fluid, or a bar of fruit and nut chocolate may contain nuts.

I cannot imagine how people used to get by in the old days.
;-)

 

[SacreBleu]

I don't think it will reduce the number of stupid people. More likely to accelerate the transfer of wealth from the average Joes to the lawyers.

 

[metengr]

The blame culture in the US is also very apparent, but has more to do with the infestation of "greed" over time than stupidity. I really don’t see an end to this problem until States step in and regulate the award of frivolous lawsuits. Yes, people today hire lawyers to generate these lawsuits that lay blame regardless of stupidity, and drive up the cost of doing business.

 

[rhodie]

If you ask me, Darwin's Theory of Evolution helps contribute to rationale of the "blame culture".

With most religions, self-accountability is a central facet of whatever belief is manifested.

The Theory of Evolution, and the subsequent invalidation of religion, means we are left to our own devices; and the product of the "There's no-accountability for myself and my actions due to no existence of a Superior Being to judge me, because I'm just here as an effect of progressive reproduction" culture has been quite simply to blame anything else but yourself for those problems. There's no reason to be accountable, just to make your time on earth as easy on yourself as you can manage to make it.
(Even the Wendy's finger-in-the-chili lady cried the she had been victimized (link) by the foodchain. What!?!?!)

Say what you will about Spirituality, a deeply personal topic to be sure, but recognize that living your life according to the tenets of a religion has the net effect of recognizing the consequences for your own actions.

A good Sunday topic to wrap one's head around...

 

[ivymike]

That sounds silly to me. How can you be held more responsible for your own actions than to die or not die based on the choices you make? Will the magical fairies punish you further after you're dead?

 

[HgTX]

rhodie--can you come up with stats showing that most criminals are atheists? I bet you can't.

Or, more relevant to the topic of this thread, that most people filing frivolous lawsuits are? Or that most lawmakers creating overprotective laws are? I bet you can't for those cases either. In fact, I'd bet in the U.S. that most of those people (particularly the lawmakers) consider themselves quite religious.

This topic is hot enough as it is. Don't drag in hotter topics that really aren't relevant (given the likely religious inclinations of the parties under criticism here).

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[jstickley]

ivymike,

I don't know about "magical fairies", but yes... most religious faiths hold that humans have a spirit of some sort that lives on past this life, and that actions in this life will be rewarded / punished in the hereafter. Given that the hereafter would seem to last much longer than the short time span of a human life, life and death may not seem such an important motivator to some individuals.

Anyway, it seems to me that greed is more of the issue with the blame culture and frivilous lawsuits, as metengr stated. Of course religions have something to say about that too, but that's another discussion for another site.

 

[ivymike]

Well, as they say, one man's religion is another man's belly laugh. As long as I pray to your deities, I am guaranteed a place next to you in the afterlife, right? Or do I have to contribute to your political party too?

Since we're speaking of a "culture of blame," if you have a supernatural being to pledge your allegiance to, you can be "right" and comfortably blame the gays, atheists, liberals, and illegal immigrants for everything that is wrong with society... isn't that how it's supposed to work?

 

[ivymike]

HG, that'd be a difficult thing to prove, since more than 80% of criminals in the US practice some form of Christianity. It would sure be a comforting thing for some people to believe, though...

 

[debodine]

My 2 cents may be found here:

While it is true that most of the world religions define how believers are to live, and normally include exhortation to accept responsibility for one's own actions, it is also true that people who run to lawyers and sue for the purpose of blaming others are not limited to those who reject religions.

Speaking only about the US (the only nation in which I have ever resided) and specifically about Christianity (the only religion where I have personal experience), I believe that a clear distinction would have to be made between those who actually practice Christianity versus those who simply wear the name. In the US anyone can claim to be a Christian and there is no penalty for claiming the name but not living the lifestyle prescribed for believers (in the discussion at hand, not accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions). Hence in the US frivolous lawsuits are filed by and on the behalf of "Christians" as often as they are filed by and on behalf of non-believers. My contention is that only the group of people who actually practice the tenet of Christianity to accept responsibility for their own actions will show a correspondingly low rate of filing lawsuits.

This relates to the main topic of the post in that I believe my contention is a reason (not the only reason, but a strong reason) why even those called Christians participate in the "Blame Culture".

Also, in my opinion, the legal profession has created the rules that make lawsuits almost mandatory for so many things, and this adds to the blame culture. How many of us have been counseled that if we are involved in a traffic accident, "Don't say anything, don't admit to anything"? Why? Because even if you caused the accident, when your insurance company attempts to absolve you of the blame (not because they love you so much, but to avoid paying for the damage you did), then their lawyers will have a better chance of reducing the payout to the injured party if you have not admitted fault.

Oddly enough, I almost used the acronym INHO to begin the last paragraph, but changed it to "in my opinion" before posting. In the interest of practicing a tenet of my own religion to be honest, then I could not use the term "humble" when referring to my opinion. A character flaw that my Lord is working on removing from my personality, even as we chat. )

 

[Maui]

Scotty, I thought that in the UK if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a defendant and lost his/her battle in court, your laws required the plaintiff to pay the legal fees and court costs of the defendant. Is this correct? I believe that this is often referred to as "loser pays" legislation. I expect that this should have the effect of reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits that are filed, since the plaintiff must realize that their costs could be substantial if they were to lose the case. In the US, we have no "loser pays" laws, which is the main reason why so many frivolous lawsuits are filed here. The plaintiff really has nothing to lose, and in some cases could stand to gain a large judgement. I would like to see us adopt your practice, but the US lawyers would obviously oppose it.

Maui

 

[plasgears]

Unfortunately, the ACLU often gets their way because their opponents don't want to go to court. It's a form of dictatorship. They are the supreme purveyors of frivolous law suits. I wonder who funds the ACLU; most likely the enemies of American culture.

 

[ivymike]

I guess that depends on how you define "American Culture." Your definition must have something to do with preventing someone from excercising their rights (ACLU defends civil liberties - much to the chagrin of those who would love to take them away)

Can you name a frivolous lawsuit brought by the ACLU? Someone asking for a little too much "freedom of the press," perhaps? Maybe someone wanting to practice the wrong religion, suing the city that prevented him? Oh waaait, now I get it, you're probably just mad that they tried to prevent some public school from teaching Christian Creationism alongside (or in place of) well-founded scientific theories regarding the origins of life...

 

[debodine]

Ivymike:

With your permission, even though your post was not directed towards me, I would like to suggest an alternative to your point. The ACLU is NOT dangerous to America because they defend civil liberties. In that you and I most certainly agree. However, I believe they are dangerous to America because they are on the leading edge of the movement to circumvent the legislative branch of our government as the birthplace of new law and replace it with the judicial branch of our government.

Our founding fathers (from the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti-Federalist Papers", which so far is all the research I have done) realized that social change would come, and intended that social change resulting in changes to the law would and should filter through the legislative branch of government, as it is the branch most directly representing the citizens. They greatly feared social change resulting in changes to the laws coming through the judiciary branch. The judiciary branch was given lifetime appointment status for the express purpose of removing them from political pressure, precisely because their function was only to interpret law in light of the Constitution, NOT to write new laws or create new rights.

Anyway, only my opinion, as I am not a founding father nor am I as informed on their writings as I should be. I am sure your opinion is just as strongly held and as valued as mine.

The beautiful part of all this is that you and I have the right and the freedom to have this very discussion, in large part due to our Constitution and maybe a small part due to the ACLU...at least their early efforts. I find myself considering them to have gone "over the line" with regard to their original purpose.

Best regards,

debodine

 

[SacreBleu]

IMHO,
Never discuss politics or religion at work ( maybe even here in Eng-Tips)

My $0.02:
Leading cause of lawsuits = lawyers.
Reason lawyers have so much power: Their culture consists of manipulating people against each other, at a fee of $200/hr minimum.

As opposed to engineers, who mainly worry about getting something to work properly or not fall down.

 

[ivymike]

Lawsuits don't create new laws - they just force interpretation of the existing laws with respect to each other and with respect to the constitution. The judiciary is well within its bounds to interpret the written laws and resolve conflicts between them. Example - the constitution says "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Some would say that teaching creation myths in a state-funded science class constitutes an establishment of religion. Others would disagree. The law doesn't explicitly address science classes or the subject matter therein, which means that the courts have to make the call. If you find their choice offensive, then all it will take is a constitutional amendment to clarify how much religion the government is allowed to push on children...

 

[debodine]

SacreBleu:

I accept the wisdom of your suggestion. I hereby withdraw from this politics/religion discussion. I appreciate Ivymike's comments because they made me think...always a good exercise for an engineer. I now return to my regularly scheduled agenda of making sure my airplanes do not fall down!

 

[EddyC]

I had an employer who practiced the "blame game" to the hilt. Any time anything went wrong, he always looked for a scape goat. It was really interesting to see everyone scrabble to defend themselves when this occurred. Most of the time, it was really no one's fault, but the employer didn't like the ambiguity of this, he needed someone to blame in order to feel relieved.

I don't think that the USA has a "blame culture" at all. Its the legal system that at fault, creating the opportunities that individuals have to pin things on someone when things go wrong and thereby benefit from it. The fault of this clearly rests upon the courts and the lawyers. We have a bunch of lawyers who will bring frivolous cases before the court and a court who is willing to listen to them. Perhaps if there were severe fines for bringing frivolous suits before the court and jurors were selected based upon intelligence, things would be different. But then the lawyers and courts would be out of business wouldn't they? And this is what its really mostly about when it comes to the legal system.

 

[Maui]

As I stated above, if the United States adopted "loser pays" legislation, we would probably see a dramatic reduction in the number of frivolous lawsuits that are filed here each year.

Maui