I wasn't there. I don't condone violence, but there may have been causes why the husband became abusive. I did not read the book.

Again, violence is not a moral issue, it is a deplorable act, especially when committed against an otherwise defenseless person. In my country (Canada) legal action can be taken. I don't know the situation in Romania.

I don't know how to answer your question. He may have been the cause of her suicide, but was it morally caused? I don't even think it was legally caused. If abuse that leads to suicide is a cause for action, then half the police force and many jail guards could become prison inmates themselves.

I think I don't know how to answer your question.

I hope I was very helpful.

Can he be the cause of her suicide? Wouldn't her own weakness be the reason? Wasn't he an obstacle which she failed to overcome? Can anything but weakness be the cause of suicide? (The book isn't that important I just gave it as an example, I want to know when a person is morally responsabile for something).

Can he be the cause of her suicide? — Matei

As a determinist, I would say that none of us are truly responsible for our own actions. So his actions, along with various other factors (each of which has their own causal chain), may have contributed to the outcome, but it’s unlikely to be able to definitively know to what extent his actions affected her actions.

From a strictly moral position, I believe we all should be considered to be responsible for our own actions. Throughout life you will find yourself in unpleasant situations, but it’s your responsibility to recognize this and find a way to escape or overcome them. In this particular situation, that may or may not have been possible. Was she entirely powerless? Were there options available to her that she either failed to see, or chose not to pursue?

Can anything but weakness be the cause of suicide? — Matei

I know you aren’t meaning to make this thread about suicide, but I disagree with this view. People kill themselves for many different reasons, and some would argue that the act of killing oneself requires strength and bravery, rather than weakness and cowardice.

Can he be the cause of her suicide? Wouldn't her own weakness be the reason? Wasn't he an obstacle which she failed to overcome? — Matei

All good questions. When a person shoots someone else down, he can argue. "I did not kill the person. The bullet did." Who is to blame? the person who pulled the trigger? The original cause why the shot person died could be many things. Pulling trigger. cardiac arrest due to bullet wound. the reason the person wanted him dead. The manufacturer of weapons. The national collective conscious that equates liberty with gun toting. The inventor of the gun. The inventor of gun powder.

You see, if any one (not more but one)_ of these contributions did not happen, the shooting could not have happened. Even the ejaculation of the grandfather of the person who invented handguns could be blamed.

So you know how philosophers handle this conondrum? By not handling it at all. Staying waaaay clear of its sight.

Questions are easy to ask, but to be meaningful either in the asking or the answering, the question must first be firmly placed in the understanding of the person asking. This is exactly not to say that the person asking must understand the question, but instead he or she at the least must have established for themselves their own understanding of the question.

And to establish that understanding, questions are often first approached. The meanings of the words and terms of the question - or candidate forms of the question - are considered and weighed. For example, there is much difference between asking what something is, and asking what you think or understand something to be.

Without care in formulating the question or understanding it, the enterprise may be knocked off track before it begins.

You ask,

but is he morally responsible for her suicide? — Matei

I invite you to think about your question. In particular to put into play the words, "is, morally, responsible, suicide"; How many different understandings can be got by looking past the surface of these words and into their substance? As it sits, I can answer your question with yes, no, maybe, and everything in between and on the sides, A question for which all possible answers are correct is not much of a question.

Or in much shorter form, what exactly do you mean? What exactly are you asking? .

is he morally responsible — Matei

If there is enough freedom in a given reactive situation that an outcome can be avoided, then I think it would be hard to argue for direct cause.

In other words, did he hold a knife to her throat and tell her that she must shoot herself? Was she so emotionally unstable that she felt she had no other choice? There are too many variables to your question. An outside observer will only judge her according to their own perspective and experiences. One person's emotional strength can be very different from another's. I think that if a person actually stops, looks back and reflects upon whether or not they could have done something to prevent a tragedy, that in itself implies that they may have had some moral responsibility that they neglected to act upon. I think we should all be more aware of how we affect or neglect others.

but is he morally responsible for her suicide? — Matei

That question is subject to debate, depending on various personal moralities. And that's what a philosophical forum is for.

But, I will note, that in a court of law, the husband could be declared a "contributing cause" to the wife's death. Therefore, culpable to some extent, but not enough to be found legally guilty of murder. Whether he is "morally" responsible, I'd have to say "yes". And he should feel guilty, and remorseful. But that's just my opinion. :smile:

Contributing Cause : A contributing cause is any cause that is not self-sufficient.
https://www.jargondatabase.com/Category/Occupation-and-Profession/Engineering-Jargon/Contributing-Cause

She made a choice to commit suicide. Moral implications of that choice are hers, not her husbands. By allowing the husband to assume the moral responsibility of her action she is denied the responsibility of said action, which means, sadly, that even her last action will be attributed to her husband.

When someone is "morally responsible", we are not talking about them being the only or absolute cause and that is missing the point. I think moral accountability ultimately comes down to whether a person can be praised or blamed in moral terms for their involvement in an event. When it comes to bullying, we don't know how the other person will react but that's not an excuse. We could hold him morally accountable for her suicide because the husband is intellectually capable of understanding that his actions could have had this effect. There no real mitigating circumstances here, the husband isn't being forced to beat his wife by anyone. The husband acted of his own free will, with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It doesn't really matter that the wife would still be alive if she did not choose to die.

Many situations have this kind of "luck" involved, say someone is stabbed, perhaps the puncture is fatal or a flesh wound, maybe medical attention will be available in time to save the victim or perhaps it won't be. So whether the attacker is a murderer or just gave someone a tiny scar, maybe it will be decided by luck but they'll be held morally accountable for either outcome. So too for the husband, maybe his wife could've been stronger and more resilient and not take her own life but that wasn't the case. That really has nothing to do with the husband, he must be held accountable for what happens even if it mightn't have happened if things outside of his control didn't happen or weren't the way they were.

But, I will note, that in a court of law, the husband could be declared a "contributing cause" to the wife's death. Therefore, culpable to some extent, but enough to be found legally guilty of murder. — Gnomon

Indeed, but isn't there a difference between penal responsability and moral responsability? He can, of course, be seen as a cause of he death, but that would make him only causal responsable.

And he should feel guilty, and remorseful. — Gnomon

Undoubtable, but what should he feel guilty about? Shouldn't he feel just as guilty if his wife would not have died? If that is the case that he doesn't feel guilty about her death, but about his actions. He is, obviously morally accountable for his actions, for willingly bringing pain and for violence, and he should feel guilty for these said action. Should he actually feel guilty for her death though?

the husband isn't being forced to beat his wife by anyone — Judaka

But the wife was not forced to kill herself either. And yes, he is morally responsible for beating her, bringing her pain, but can he be morally responsible for her actions?

held morally accountable for either outcome. — Judaka

Does that really sound right? Let's say we have two criminals who stab two persons(one each). The stabbing is exactly the same, in the case of the first criminal his victim is unlucky and dies, in the second case the victim lives. Don't you think the criminals should recieve the same punishment? They did the same thing, it was not thanks to the first criminal that the first victim lived so why should he recieve an easier punishment than the second one? Both intended the same and both did the same, one victim simply had more luck. But was that luck thanks to the criminal? Of course not and then why should he recieve an easier punishment?

could've been stronger and more resilient and not take her own life but that wasn't the case. — Judaka

Well we can just turn this around and say that the husband could have been wiser and less violent, but that wasn't the case.

But the wife was not forced to kill herself either. And yes, he is morally responsible for beating her, bringing her pain, but can he be morally responsible for her actions? — Matei

But that's not what moral responsibility is about, at the point where the husband literally forced the wife to kill herself, that's no longer suicide but murder. A husband could feel morally responsible for his wife's suicide even if he did absolutely nothing to cause it just by feeling guilty about not having noticed the signs. Moral responsibility is not a question of whether you directly caused an act, you seem to be asking whether the husband is literally responsible for her death but you already said it's suicide.

Does that really sound right? — Matei

There is a relationship between bullying and suicide, do you dispute that? A man can beat his wife and she might or might not kill herself as a result but considering the gravity of her situation, it's not unreasonable to expect that it might or could happen. If someone is being bullied to the degree that they might want to kill themselves then if they do, how can you say there's no responsibility on their end? You are correct, despite the husband's actions, things could have turned out differently but the same thing applies to the stabbing scenario. The truth is though, one stabber is a murderer and the other is not.

I think I misunderstood you though, the issue seems to be specific to suicide. Don't you see that the family and friends of someone lost to suicide can feel morally responsible and guilty? It is due to the presence of agency, the ability to do something differently which may have changed the outcome, that creates the possibility for moral responsibility. Otherwise, there would simply be no moral responsibility for someone else's suicide ever but that's not how it works.

It's a story so you can go either way.

Indeed, but isn't there a difference between penal responsability and moral responsability? He can, of course, be seen as a cause of he death, but that would make him only causal responsable. — Matei

My comment omitted an important qualifier. It should have said "but not enough to be found legally guilty". So yes, legal responsibility requires objective evidence, and a jury of peers. Moral responsibility is a personal subjective judgment, and others may not agree with that opinion. That's why social accountability requires multiple attestations to the "crime". Personal accountability may be limited to a feeling of guilt, in those so inclined. There may be several contributing causes for suicide, such as depression. But the abusive husband would be the best judge of his own contribution. :smile:

Moral Accountability : The Mosaic Law specified that, before anyone could be put to death by stoning, there had to be a trial, and at least two witnesses had to testify: “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html

If you are beating your wife and she kills herself, you are responsible; but not morally responsible; you're just a &!$! who beats women and who everyone is going to blame for the death even though you may not be legally culpable. There's already all the tools in place in society to say, e.g., "responsible" is, say, subject to the consequences. And there are many different kinds of consequences; no friends, lose your job, fall into alcoholism by guilt and blow your own brains out. It is not a moral problem--if you are abusing someone, you take the results of those actions. To ask when we are morally responsible is to be in a situation where we do not know already what the consequences are. What matters in this situation. Then you are in charge and,will be judged for determining what to do based on what reasons; how you proceeded or reacted or stood idle..

It sounds as if you are really asking, ‘are the husbands actions moral, or could they be?’ Moral responsibility or accountability takes morality directly into the realm of what others think and feel. This is a problem because a large section of the impetus to moral action is supposed to come from the individual. There are cases in which someone doing something perceived as moral could be done for immoral reasons, for instance; such an act is often not as easily categorized.

So if the question is, will the domestic abuser be morally accountable, then that depends on where and when you are living. In some places that’s not considered as collectively abhorrant as in the West. If the question is about why an individual should or shouldn’t abuse their wife, then there is a path for finding that answer as well.

, I can answer your question with yes, no, maybe, and everything in between and on the sides, A question for which all possible answers are correct is not much of a question.

@tim wood
Your efforts to clarify the question are right, but this is taking it to excess. We should not judge the quality of the question based solely on the answers it produces. To say so would be to as if to claim nobody should ask any questions for which the respondents around them don’t seek answers. There are accounts online (sources obviously not wholly reliable) that in ancient times many philosophers were tried and killed for asking questions that individuals considered to be unfit for a response. Is that kind of excess conducive to free and worthwhile thought?

The husband has obviously done immoral and unvirtuous things and he is responsible for those indeed, but is he morally responsible for her suicide? — Matei

I like this question. It's interesting. Approached in a non-biased manner.

The husband in question sounds to be a person lacking any and all notions of self-control ie. a child. However, the women sounds to have roped herself into a lifelong commitment with something, a man in this case, without truly "testing the waters" and seeing what kind of person he is, essentially, as you said "loved him" ie. deciding the entire fate of one's life based on petty emotion (ie. tingles in the pants, masquerading as love from the heart)... ie. also a child. Yet, who failed to raise her as a woman with dignity and discernment? Another child. Though we don't know her circumstances nor those of her father. Maybe life was hectic and there was due cause, reason, and purpose proper upbringing and related discernment was absent. We don't know!

Long story short, nothing the Global Church State cannot and will not fix. Coming soon by the way.

We should not judge the quality of the question based solely on the answers it produces. — kudos

Agreed, for at the least that would make the one asking responsible for any answer. But the point was that we can and should judge the question on the basis of its meaning, and especially if it has any particular meaning. For that the one asking is responsible. And further, the one answering a question he has not understood, is to that degree part of the problem.

Interesting question as a test case for my argument; that morality is fundamentally a sense - like the aesthetic sense, or a sense of humour. I do not believe morality is an explicit set of God given rules, or laws, but is a sense fostered in the human animal by evolution in a tribal context.

As such - when he married her, he adopted a responsibility for her. He treated a member of his tribe very badly, and failed to support her when she was troubled. She committed the act - and it was an act of violence against herself, but surely it was intended to harm her abuser with implied guilt. That so, one might argue she succeeded insofar as he felt guilty, and he was as morally responsible as he felt himself to be.

Where it gets interesting is, in a world where morality is considered an objective, God given force - as opposed to a subjective sensibility, it seems likely the man would post rationalise, and reject any responsibility for her actions. Whereas, if morality were recognised as a sense, I believe - he could not escape his conscience, and like The Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe, or Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, his crimes against her would be brought to bear by her suicide.