I'm Not To Blame

By Sean Stubblefield

In a society that is more concerned with punishing mistakes than correcting them, is it any wonder, really, that so many people are inclined to deny and evade responsibility?

I'm referring mostly to accepting responsibility, not taking responsibility; the distinction being that in accepting responsibility it is given to you, and in taking responsibility it is assumed by you.

Few among us (if given a choice) really want to suffer the consequences, when those consequences are negative. If the consequences of our actions are known by us in advance to be positive- if we knew we would be rewarded or at least not be harmed, then we would more probably and gladly accept or take responsibility… provided that isn't an unwanted burden. If we can anticipate getting credit for doing something deemed good, we are tempted to accept it, deserved or not. If we can anticipate getting chastised for doing something deemed bad, we are tempted to denounce and deflect it, deserved or not.

Blame and fault and guilt are too easily and eagerly thrown around, against others and against ourselves. Our legal system claims that we are innocent until proven guilty, but we are a very litigious and irresponsible society. But despite how secular our world has become, America is still an essentially Judeo-Christian culture.

Original Sin, which-- as we all know-- states that people are born inherently guilty, is a fundamental tenet of Christianity.

If we expect harassment for our errors- actual or perceived, and if we can either blame someone or something else or reject personal accountability… then nothing ever has to be our fault. It is commonly believed- and made so-- that the fundamental motivations are reward and punishment. It may be true enough that our primary motivations are based on reward and punishment, but pleasure and pain are not our only incentives. We can also be reasoned with, ideally.

Punishment and reward are generally regarded as more preferred and persuasive than reasoning because, on many occasions, it yields more direct and immediate results. This "motivational" tool often comes into play because it is convenient, not only because it serves those doing the "persuading", but because of those who make engaging reward and punishment necessary by being unwilling to reason.

Therefore, our society tends to utilize punishment and reward to convince and motivate people more often and more readily than reasoning.

Reward may even consist of withdrawing or withholding punishment.

Standard operating procedure encourages us to apply a policy of bribes, fear and intimidation. We are told that we should do what is right or what is expected of us not because it is good and proper, but because we will be hurt if we don't comply, or given a treat if we do obey. Which, I think, is juvenile.

When we want someone to do or not do something, we typically hurt or threaten to hurt them or offer payment.

Reward and punishment are a primary source of motivation or deterrent because they are primal, appealing to our base animal natures. They are more directly and immediately understood than reasoning, and so are usually more efficient and effective than reasoning. Punishment is pain, and reward is pleasure. Like our fight or flight reaction, simple stimulus response.

Considering that most people have a natural aversion to pain and suffering, why would or should people want, or be expected, to admit wrongdoing in an environment of cavalier prosecution and persecution?

Unfortunately, many individuals in our society today reflexively complain and blame, lacking the fortitude or integrity to endure difficulty, annoyance and insult, expecting to be catered to. Many of them will frivolously sue someone for the merest of inconveniences, feeling a sense of entitlement to something for nothing. Doing so, they victimize themselves, as well as whomever they sue.

Some people are hesitant to rescue someone from the site of an accident, and may even abstain from helping others, afraid of being wrongfully sued later.

If an individual is not willing or conditioned to accept and endure certain pain, then he/ she will tend to seek to escape responsibility- and the potential for being blamed, if possible. Even if we are accustomed to suffering, if we may reasonably expect that accepting and taking responsibility will result in the undesirable and unreasonable annoyance of being inconveniently hassled or obstructed, then we will likely prefer to lie, and deny responsibility.

As a matter of self-defense, as well as expediency. If we know that the primary and initial response to an error is to assign blame and find fault-- rather than solve the problem-- then it is understandable why so many would rather avoid accepting (or taking) responsibility.

Send Comments to: exastra@hotmail.com

Currently based in Houston Texas, Sean Stubblefield graduated Sam Houston State University with a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Television Production. A philosopher poet, Stubblefield has been writing non-fiction for 15 years, and has penned eight books to date. His first book, Paradox: A Journey Inside Out is available today.

For More Information: www.myspace.com/exastral.

Copyright © 2009, NewsBlaze, Daily News

Tags:

* The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze

   _   _