I have a curious thought that I want to preface is possibly unsettling to consider. However, given it is purely hypothetical, and I predict it will spawn interesting debate, I’m going ahead with it anyway. In the event of a physical fight between a physically disabled male (completely mentally competent) and an average able-bodied female, which person would bear the fault heavier? For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume both are equally aggressive, and both came at one another at the same time.
Due to general societal bias, in an equally able-bodied instance, the man would be seen as having committed a heinous crime. (I say bias to account for the instances in which women hit men with little to no repercussion as far as societal judgment.)
How disabled is the man? The question here is about the physical disparity between the two and the result of that in a fight. Gender is irrelevant. If either party is substantially more physically able than the other they are at fault for engaging in a fight with the other. If they have comparatively similar ability to fight then they are just two fools and both equally at fault.
If it was an average man against an average woman it wouldn’t be seen as a heinous crime. While the man will get the worst of it in court unless the result of the fight was a severe injury to the woman then it won’t amount to much.
What an interesting question! I’ve never even considered it myself (I am a paraplegic). Imo, personally a fight between me and my gf would be very one-sided, unfair fight (in my favor). However, I don’t think most of the outside world would have the same opinion. Obviously this opinion has never been tested and never will be but based on my experiences in public with my gf as well as solo experiences have shaped that opinion. Both of us are treated as some level of helpless and vulnerable but it’s significantly more pronounced with me.
For example, both of us have people falling over themselves to open doors for us but if we are alone and tell the person who is eager to help that their help is appreciated but unwanted and unneeded, my gf is the one whose request will be heeded. I just get ignored and the help is forced upon me. This is a regular occurrence.
In actual morals or societal morals? In actual morals, both parties are about equally guilty.
Societal morals : is the woman a mother? Is she young and attractive with maximum breeding potential? Well, society is going to give her a pass. And this is usually reflected in how juries decide and what the courts tend to rule.
It’s not fair, but we have a justice system based on a combination of mob rule and straw polls of 6-12 random citizens. It doesn’t adhere to any consistent set of ethics and is wildly inconsistent and in some cases flat out immoral.
Depends on who wins. If the guy with no arms gets the crap beat out of him, people will judge the woman more severely since he ‘obviously’ couldn’t defend himself. If he roundhouse kicks her into a wall, he’s going to be seen as the asshole.
I don’t think the physical attributes of a person involved in a fight have anything to do with whether their involvement is right, wrong, or somewhere in between. It completely depends on what the altercation is about and what happened leading up to it. I get that a lot of people choose not to think about these things and prefer to use a simple formula to determine blame&shame; something like:
If the bigger/stronger/more masculine person won, got injured less, or tied with the lesser person then they are automatically in the wrong. If they lose then the blame goes 50:50.
… and the conclusions drawn from these simple formulas are very often wrong.
As presented here, it’s really hopeless to pass judgement on how wrong either the disabled male or able bodied female is in “a fight”. A fight over what? If it’s an abusive nurse trying to steal the disabled guy’s medication to sell on the black market and she’s beating the guy over the head to try to get it then she’s obviously entirely in the wrong. If it’s a horned up male rapist with a missing foot beating down a woman in an alley it’s quite obviously the opposite.
In my experience men and women don’t just spontaneously walk (or roll) up to each other in the street and mutually decide to engage in full-contact fights for no particular reason. This hypothetical isn’t realistic without more context.
I would consider it a wash, and I would consider it a wash even if the guy wasn’t disabled.
No excuse for either sex tho initiate violence. None.
So, if they go after eachother at the same time or whatever contrived thing to make this “equal” they are both morally equivalent.
I will say though, that I would take damage inflicted into consideration, but I am also assuming, based off your initial framing, that damage is equal as well.
Nah, behavior-correcting violence/force happens thousands of times a day all over the world; we even train and pay people to initiate it when need be. All violence isn’t equal. And there are plenty of good reasons to initiate more serious violence when no other means is available to resolve the problem:
Some creepy pedophile picks up your toddler and starts walking off with her, ignoring your verbal protest as well as your pulling on his arm; he just keeps dragging her towards his van. You’re not going to start smacking and gouging the guys eyes out to get your kid back? Plenty of reasons to go ape shit and initiate violence on another person who’s doing something grossly unacceptable (though not violent it’s self).
Well if we’re going to throw in extenuating circumstances not mentioned in the OP, then all bets are off. Yeah of course motive plays a part in justifying violence. This seemed like a random, nobody was doing anything nefarious, and they both decided to beat eachother up for No reason.
So many variables. But the basic point - to what extent does society “rank” non-White-male characteristics? - is clearly an interesting one. Is being disabled “worse”/lower ranked vs. being a woman? Is a Woman generally still considered “weaker” than a disabled Man?
The Presidency is another example: A man of color has been elected president before a white woman. Yes, there was huge context, but it is part of the same topic as the fight question, IMHO. Is a non-white-male of one type “more electable” than another?
As for the OP’s question: I don’t have an absolute position as to which, if either, would be seen as “at fault more.” I would think both would feel extremely shitty about what they did once they snapped out of it, assuming this is a simple fight, not one taking action against the other. I could see a friend saying to either one of them “Dude, you got into a fight with a Woman/Guy in a Wheelchair - what were you thinking?!”
The book lays out an evolutionary model for the development of moral systems in individuals and communities. Super interesting and easy to read. Relevant to your OP, the author innovated research based on morally ambiguous anecdotes he could use like Rorschach Tests for moral input. He sets up brief anecdotes where, say a guy has sex with this food before he eats it and no one can possibly find out - is that bad and if so why? He uses that to learn about how folks view individual freedoms vs. community morals within a given group. Those anecdotes seem similar in ambiguity to your OP.
You point out a very prevalent bias with the court system and you’re humorously disillusioned. I bet you’re having a ball wondering about the very state of our democracy currently.
Oh I admit it was a stupid question, this was kind of a fuck it, why not ask thread. But you’re probably right, I’d probably read that book. In a way it’s all tangential nonsense about as rewarding as playing a video game, but I’m actually going to click your link. Thank you.
Ha. I guess there’s really no set way to truly answer any of these questions apart from surveying populations and hoping for a fairly representative demographic to respond honestly, but I still like wondering.
As far as a lot of my preconceived notions about the future in any capacity related to our government and the electability of candidates, our democracy as a whole, right and wrong (ok, a bit hyperbolic), I have started just hitting my head against a metaphorical wall. I think Trump’s resiliency is to blame for my utter bafflement. I hold no opinions anymore.
I had to chuckle reading this. There is no way I’m not irritating the shit out of you with my ambiguity. (I probably won’t post many more ambiguous threads, though so no worries.)
Shitty people exist. Ideally, we’d all love to live in a world without violence and evilness, but human nature isn’t exactly refined to the point we can all be pacifists and hold hands and prosper. On the flip side, though, I’m not going to strap an AK-47 to my back and walk around my neighborhood to ward off outsiders.
I think we’re socially conditioned though to the point where generally it’s the desperate who do heinous things in our country, and it’s generally in a predictable, patterned way. (Gun crime in shitty urban areas usually confined to gang violence, or what have you. Probably safe for the average person though to live there.)
Then again, there is Florida Man. I throw my hands up. My argument is invalid.
True, true. Logically, the disparity lies in the physical capabilities of both parties - but societally? I almost want to argue the Americans with Disabilities Act would kick that woman’s ass in court. But it’s a total hypothetical.