We're again talking past each other, creating a pot luck stew for yet another food fight. It's not merely that each person presumes a differing set of "facts" and not just that we each live in our unique worlds based on our own life experiences, the way our 'world' has treated us, and how we've learned to frame what we see. It's also a matter of speaking to distinct and conflicting objectives ... the questions of prudent behavior vs. guilt ... the questions of how one is advised to behave prudently in this 'world' as opposed to how one exercises one's rights.

Let's use a more overt metaphor. Let's suppose an attractive young woman decides to wear her most provocative Daisy Dukes, go party at night, get drunk, and walk home alone. She is assaulted and raped. She is a victim. Few would "blame" her for the assault. Most would agree that the decision to behave in the manner described wasn't prudent. "I wouldn't do that." We all choose behavior based on the view we've developed of our 'world' and the priorities we've set ... principle vs. risk. Clearly, the bald statement of "she should've expected that" can be met with anger and resentment. It sounds like blaming the victim and most would agree that it "shouldn't happen" in a civilized society. Those are fairly common expectations.

At the same time, it's not all that much different from smearing one's self with raw meat and walking in the woods where grizzley bears live. Is that prudent? No. But it's also not seen as the exercise of one's "civil liberties" either. That aspiration ... that expectation that we live in a civil society intrudes upon our conciousness ... depending upon our life experiences and how we see that "real world."

It may not be obvious, but similar split reactions happen to whistleblowers. When an employee stands firm and refuses to "go along to get along" their coworkers usually engage in the self-serving attitude of blaming them for "rocking the boat" ... the "I know better than to do that" security blanket. Again, it's not so much a question of right vs. wrong ... it's a question of discretion vs. valor.

Like it or not, the vast majority of us tend to adopt the Tonya Harding Defense against bear attacks. It's not necessary to be the fastest runner in your group to escape the hungry bear. It's only necessary to keep from being the slowest. So, we make sure someone in the group gets kneecapped. (If someone else does the dirty deed, we can even feel more superior.)

How do we teach our children?? Do we actually teach them right from wrong? Or do we teach them discretion?

How do we counsel our friends? When a friend discovers that their spouse cheated on them, do we tell our friend they should learn to pick better mates? Or do we assure our friend that they've been "wonged" and that they're "right" and "somebody should punish the wrongdoer."

What's our objective? Are we trying to be self-serving with "that couldn't happen to me because I know better than to behave that way" or are we actually participating in the vigilantism of lynching wrong-doers?

Is "discretion the better part of valor" ... or is it just another word for cowardice?


(I dunno ... I'm just a nut.)