Someone once argued that causality is impossible to prove in any open, chaotic system. While I think I can buy that argument -- for certain cases, anyway -- there are certain events which appear to be obviously, irrefutably linked. I kick the wall, my toe gets broken. It may be impossible to prove that there wasn't some other cause for my toe getting broken, but we're pretty sure it was the wall. I believe that me kicking the wall was the cause of my toe getting broken.

Look at something different, though. A crosswalk at an intersection. A man walks out into the crosswalk, and gets pasted by a car speeding through a red light. Most people would agree, I think, that this accident was caused by both actors trying to occupy the same space at the same time. So they both caused it? Obviously. If the pedestrian weren't in that place at that time, he wouldn't have gotten creamed. Conversely, if the car weren't in that place at that time doing that speed, he wouldn't have hit the pedestrian. That's Locke's state of nature. They're both equally at fault because they both impeded the freedoms of the other.

But to us, the scenario isn't quite that way. One is obviously at fault, and the other isn't. There is blame to be placed, and it gets placed on the man who sped through the intersection. Why? Did he do something wrong? How do you define wrong? Don't you have to be in the wrong to be at fault, to deserve the blame? We have certain standards in life, accepted models of behavior. Those who follow these models, who draw within the lines, we say are blameless. They're in the right. Those who "break" the law are in the wrong. They're to blame, they're at fault. Even though they're only half of the cause? Absolutely.

But what about things where there are no models? Say, for example, we're playing a friendly game, and someone tries to jump on me. Say I dodge, and that person runs into a tree and hurts herself. Obviously we're both half the cause (or maybe a third, because it wouldn't have happened if the tree hadn't been there... But we'll just assume causality of this sort is a function of free will, and that the tree has none. And I know, that's a much more complicated argument than the one I'm making now. Deal.). If she hadn't jumped, she wouldn't have fallen. If I hadn't dodged, she probably wouldn't have fallen. Or maybe she would have anyway. Maybe we both would have. I am a bit of a wimp. Anywho... We both caused it. But who's to blame? Her, for initiating the encounter, or me for avoiding it? If I'd been standing there anawares, and she'd tried to run into me from behind, and missed entirely and hit the tree, I'd say she was to blame. But I saw that she was jumping on me, and I dodged, even though I'd just spotted the tree behind me (because I almost ran into it myself). So, are we both to blame?

A more important question, I think, is does it matter? When does placing blame matter? When someone can get something out of it? Even if I determine that she was entirely to blame, it won't give me peace of mind. So what's the point? We as humans spend too much time trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong, who's at fault and who's not, who's to blame and who's blameless... Maybe we should spend more time trying to love and respect.

But right now, I'm bothered... I'm bothered by something she said...
"Stupid me, trying to jump on Dathan, when he was just going to jump out of the way. No more trying to tackle Dathan."

It's a shame, because I'd really miss it.