***It seems to me the only answer that follows from all of this is "Yes," but deserving of the rape owing the guilt she "shoulders" for foolishness. The only thing you've really said in favor of the tramp is that she is not a criminal, but I don't think anybody in this thread assumed this in the first place.***
I don’t think your conclusion logically follows from my premise. The definition of the word “deserve” is:
deserve –verb (used with object)
1. to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.
–verb (used without object)
2. to be worthy of, qualified for, or have a claim to reward, punishment, recompense, etc.: to reward him as he deserves; an idea deserving of study.
When you speak of “deserving” something, it means you have done something to merit that specific action. If you slap a man, you deserve to be slapped back – but you don’t necessarily deserve to have your face rearranged. However, many would claim that if you slap a man who is much stronger and more aggressive than you, you “deserve what you get”. I would argue that if you slap such a man, you have acted foolishly and are probably going to receive quite a bit more retribution than you deserve.
Just as a kid who absent-mindedly (and foolishly) wanders into a road and gets hit by a car didn’t “deserve” to die, his or her foolishness enabled the tragedy. In the case of the “WDaaT”, her foolishness enabled a crime.
Of course, many children wander into roads without getting killed. And many WDaaT’s go home without ever getting raped. It is important to remember that the severity of the consequences or the outcome of the situation has no impact on how foolish the activity was. Getting off scot-free doesn’t make the action less foolish. And suffering greatly doesn’t make the action more foolish. The action is as foolish as it is, regardless of the outcome.
My daughter recently (last spring) foolishly put herself in a VERY vulnerable position with someone she hardly knew while I was out of town. Her justification was that she knew no harm would come to her. What I tried like hell to explain to her (with limited success, even to this day) was that just because nothing happened doesn’t make her decision any less foolish.
I told her, as I believe any responsible person with a grain of intelligence would’ve told her, is that she could’ve been made to suffer dearly. But I don’t think anyone in their right mind would’ve told her that she deserved to. I know I would never have said that. She was naïve and foolish – but that doesn’t merit suffering.
I wouldn’t tell anyone who put themselves in a position vulnerable to suffering that they deserve to suffer simply because they foolishly put themselves in that position. Doing something to enable or increasing the likelihood that one will suffer is foolish. However, doing such a thing does not merit suffering, it only enables or increases the likelihood of it.
In fact, we all do foolish things all the time! We take calculated risks every single day, and we rarely calculate with perfect precision. Would you say that every time we err on the side of foolishness that we deserve to suffer the most dire of consequences? Would anyone say that?
My criticism of the congregation is that they acted foolishly. My criticism of the criminal is that he committed a crime. I believe it is crucial to understand the difference between the two when evaluating moral responsibility in therse situations.
