A Philosopher's Blog

The “Princeton Mom” & Sexual Assault

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Universities & Colleges by Michael LaBossiere on March 31, 2014
Princeton University

Princeton University (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Susan Patton, better known as the “Princeton Mom”, has been making the rounds of the talk and news shows promoting her Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE book. This book presents the 18th century view that a woman should focus primarily on finding a husband and do so quickly—fertility diminishes with time.

Patton attracted more attention with her March 11, 2014 interview with the Daily Princetonian. In a letter to the editor written about a year before the interview, she had make a rather provocative remark: “Please spare me your ‘blaming the victim’ outrage” and claimed that a woman who is drunk and provocatively dressed “must bear accountability for what may happen.” When asked why the woman is responsible in the case of rape or sexual assault, she had the following to say:

 

 The reason is, she is the one most likely to be harmed, so she is the one that needs to take control of the situation. She is that one that needs to take responsibility for herself and for her own safety, and simply not allow herself to come to a point where she is no longer capable of protecting her physical self. The analogy that I would give you is: If you cross the street without looking both ways and a car jumps the light or isn’t paying attention, and you get hit by a car — as a woman or as anybody — and you say, ‘Well I had a green light,’ well yes you did have a green light but that wasn’t enough. So in the same way, a woman who is going to say, ‘Well the man should have recognized that I was drunk and not pushed me beyond the level at which I was happy to engage with him,’ well, you didn’t look both ways. I mean yes, you’re right, a man should act better, men should be more respectful of women, but in the absence of that, and regardless of whether they are or are not, women must take care of themselves.

 

As might be imagined, this view has generated some backlash from faculty at Princeton and other people. Given the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity and such controversy can help sell books, it is not clear that the view expressed is one that Patton truly holds. However, when discussing the ethics of the content of her claims, her actual belief does not matter. As such, I will take her expressed view at face value.

Patton’s first claim is that since the woman is most likely to be harmed, she needs to be responsible for her safety. There are at least two ways to view this claim. One is the very reasonable claim that a person needs to be responsible for her own safety—that is, a person has an obligation to herself to make sure that she is not needlessly in danger. This view that self-preservation is rational and obligatory is nicely defended by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. Another way to view the claim, which is that apparently taken by her critics, is that the burden falls completely on the woman. While this is certainly a prudent view, it does run afoul of the notion that the person who wrongfully inflicts harm on another should bear the majority of the responsibility for the harm inflicted (if not all of it).

Patton’s second claim is that a woman has an obligation to not allow herself to be incapable of self-defense. Presumably Patton means that a woman has an obligation to not become some drunk that she cannot defend herself from a man who means to assault or rape her. In defense of this claim, Patton offers her analogy: a woman who gets assaulted or raped when she is too drunk to defend herself is like someone who gets hit by a car because they did not look both ways before crossing the street—even though she had the light.

The analogy does have some merit—while drivers are obligated to take care not to hit people, a person should take due precautions to avoid being hit. To do otherwise is clearly foolish. However, there is a distinction between what is prudent and what is morally obligatory. While it makes perfect sense that a woman should not impair herself when she has reason to believe that she will be vulnerable to assault or rape, this is a different matter than her having a moral obligation to herself to avoid being vulnerable in this way. There is also a third matter, namely who is responsible when a drunk woman is raped or assaulted.

In regards to the second matter, this is essentially a question of whether there is a moral obligation for self-defense. It is generally accepted that people have a moral right to self-defense and for the sake of the discussion that will be assumed. This right gives a person the liberty to protect herself. If it is only a liberty, then the person has the right to not act in self-defense and thus be an easy victim. However, if there is an obligation of self-defense, then failing to act on this obligation would seem to be a moral failing. The obvious challenge is to show that there is such an obligation.

On the face of it, it would seem that self-defense is merely a liberty. However, some consideration of the matter will suggest that this is not so obvious.  In the Leviathan, Hobbes presents what he takes to be the Law of Nature (lex naturalis): “a precept or general rule, found by reason, that forbids a man to do what is destructive of his life or takes away the means of preserving it and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved.” Hobbes goes on to note that “right consists in liberty to do or to forbear” and “law determines and binds.” If Hobbes is correct, then people would seem to have both a right and an obligation to self-defense.

John Locke and Thomas Aquinas also contend that life is to be preserved and if they are right, then this would seem to impose an obligation of self-defense. Of course, this notion could be countered by contending that all it requires is for a person to seek protection from possible threats and doing so could involve relying on the protection or restraint of others rather than one’s self. However, there are arguments against this.

I will start with a practical argument. While the modern Western state projects its coercive force and spying eyes into society, the state’s agents cannot (yet) observe all that occurs nor can they always be close at hand in times of danger. As such, relying solely on the state would seem to put a person at risk—after all, he would be helpless in the face of danger. If a person relies on other individuals, then unless she is guarded at all times, then she also faces the real risk of being a helpless victim. This would, at the very least, seem imprudent.

This argument can be used as the basis for a moral argument. If a person is morally obligated to preserve life (including his own) and others cannot be reliably depended on, then it would seem that she would have an obligation of self-defense and this would include not intentionally making herself vulnerable to well-known threats. These threats would, sadly, include those presented by bad men. As such, a woman would have a moral obligation to avoid being vulnerable. This seems reasonable.

The third matter is the question of moral responsibility when a drunk woman is assaulted or raped by a man who takes advantage of her vulnerability.  In the abstract, it could be argued that the woman does bear some of the responsibility—if a woman has an obligation to defend herself, she would have failed in her obligation by becoming vulnerable in this way. As with her analogy, someone who crosses the road without looking and gets hit has failed in a clear duty to herself. However, even if this point is granted, there is still the matter of who bears the majority of the responsibility.

On the face of it, it seems evident that the man who assaulted or raped the woman bears the overwhelming moral responsibility. After all, even if the woman should have avoided being vulnerable, the man has a far greater moral obligation to not harm her. There is also the matter of reasonable expectations. To be specific, while a person is obligated to protect herself, this does not obligate her to be hyper-vigilant against all possible dangers. To use an analogy, if woman does not buy body armor to wear on campus (after all, there have been campus shooting) and she is shot by a gunman, it would be absurd to blame her for her injury or death. The blame rests on the shooter—his obligation to not shoot her vastly outweighs the extent of her obligation to be prepared.

In the case of rape and sexual assault, while a woman should be prudent for the sake of self-protection, the overwhelming moral responsibility is on the man. That the woman makes herself vulnerable to rape or assault no more lessens the rapist’s responsibility than the fact that the woman was not wearing body armor lessens the responsibility of the shooter. The principle here is that vulnerability does not mitigate moral responsibility. This is intuitively plausible: just because a victimizer has an easier time with his victim, it hardly makes his misdeeds less bad.

Patton does acknowledge that men should act better, but she does insist that a woman must take care of herself. This could be seen as sensible advice: a woman should not count on the goodwill of others, but be on guard against reasonably foreseeable harm. This advice is, of course, consistent with the view that the rapist is the one truly responsible for the rape.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on March 31, 2014 at 8:15 am

    How does this fit with biological determinism? (= my genes made me do it) You make the BIG assumption of free will here. I thought that was an illusion (= my genes made me do it) Also, what about sexbots and rape? Both as victims and perps? (= my programing me me do it?)

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 31, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      I accept free will on the basis of my stock argument: If we have free will, then I should believe in it. If we do not have free will, I am determined to believe in it. So I believe in it. One way I am right, the other way I am wrong but not responsible. If I believed we do not have free will, I would be wrong if we did and right, but unworthy of merit, if I was “right.”

      The gene defense lacks merit. Or, one could just respond, “our genes made us put him in jail.”

      • apollonian said, on March 31, 2014 at 4:54 pm

        So u admit u’re psychotically obsessed–u’ll “believe” regardless of truth–but no doubt u believe, nonetheless, it’s “good” to be this way–true child of Kant.

        So u’re just a subjectivist, filled w. hubristic madness, playing God unto urself–but it’s okay, because it’s “good”–why it’s good u don’t know or care, but u’re determined it’s “good,” u’re end-all and be-all–all motivated, no doubt fm/by inferiority complex which impels u towards this mystic “good.”

        • apollonian said, on March 31, 2014 at 4:56 pm

          errata: above should be “…ur end-all and be-all….”

        • apollonian said, on April 1, 2014 at 11:09 am

          See Mike: if u were Aristotelian–considering u live in an objective reality–u’d accept the determinist nature, a reality w. identity, therefore determined.

          But u’re not–u’re just a subjectivist–reality is merely what u wish it was, like any child. And WHY?–because u have this amazing inferiority complex, right?–because u just HAVE to pretend u’re “good”–which only amounts, in the end, to OBEDIENCE to ZOG.

  2. TJB said, on March 31, 2014 at 8:46 am

    Offering common sense advice on how to avoid becoming a victim is not the same as blaming the victim.

    • apollonian said, on March 31, 2014 at 12:15 pm

      Don’t be stupid. We need a law against stupidity, evidently, ho ho ho ho Remember the great comedian, Gallagher?–he crusaded against stupidity–“help stamp-out stupidity”–after all, it’s immoral, eh? Ho ho ho ho

  3. apollonian said, on March 31, 2014 at 10:52 am

    “Morality” Has To Do With Living, NOT “Good”

    Mike is absolutely, desperately, obsessed w. moralism/Pharisaism, a true child of Kant–it’s good to pretend to goodness, ho ho ho ho ho. Who could possibly continue w. such total obsession but a psychotic? Regardless, ZOG demands it’s thought-controllers push this psychotic crap on the goons to be programmed in the state idiot factories, indubitably. U must be good (obedient), ho ho ho ho ho.

    U don’t gotta live if u don’t want to. But if u decide u want to live, u find certain things are important for consideration–first is consideration itself, ho ho ho ho–thinking is important for living. So u see: morality is simply a tool for living–if u want to live, then certain things are necessary–it has NOTHING to doing w. “good-evil,” which is mere delusion, though extremely useful for ZOG.

    So in the abstract we can easily agree everyone should make an effort to look out for oneself, because gee whiz, if u don’t u might die, ho ho ho ho ho

    Legally, responsibility for rape must fall upon the rapist, obviously–for if u go about doing nasty things to people, u might have nasty things done to u, eh? Ho ho ho ho So if u don’t want nasty done to u, don’t so do unto others.

    Mike likes to muddle things up and then see if anyone can make simple sense out of it all, I guess.

    • apollonian said, on March 31, 2014 at 12:13 pm

      Oh yes, I forgot: obviously, if the legal system prosecuted the rapee for being raped, then things wouldn’t work well, would it? Ho ho ho ho ho–Mike needs having these things explained out in detail, otherwise his students get pt.s taken-off, no doubt, ho ho ho ho ho


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,087 other followers

%d bloggers like this: