Something like this. We see ourselves. Self-interest is somehow shared interest in these cases.. or something approximating that squared circle of care. — AmadeusD

Right. We see that the thing that we are interested in is the same thing they are engaged in, namely rational deliberation and a search for something better. Even if our conclusions diverge, our pursuit is akin.

IN practical terms, it probably solves it. But the arguments remain unchanged :P — AmadeusD

Of course, but there are also more robust versions of this, where instead of speaking about understanding and love one speaks about truth and goodness, which are said to be "convertible" with one another, and which both bridge the gap between subjective and objective. If seeking and knowing truth is good/enjoyable/lovable, then we are self-motivated towards it.

But I suspect there are exceptions to these rules: cases where understanding or truth does not lead to love or an attribution of goodness.

If there is a car crash, again one needs to identify the fault; sometimes it might be the brakes, and sometimes it might be the driver. There was one recently in which a child was killed - the fault was in the driver, but it was not alcohol, but epilepsy. The driver was unaware of their epilepsy because they had not been diagnosed. They were found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
— unenlightened
1h
— Leontiskos

It seems to me that if you’re going to apply the concept of forgiveness to this particular example you’re stretching its meaning well beyond the way it is commonly used. — Joshs

I agree. To 'forgive' someone who is not guilty is impossible, although it might well have a great psychological value in such a case to both parties if the aggrieved parents would extend that reassurance to the innocent, but perhaps self-blaming driver.

An interesting extension of this is the case where the perpetrator is guilty, but does not accept their responsibility. In this case it seems to me that the victim can offer forgiveness from the heart, but the perpetrator cannot receive it. Psychologically, (or even 'spiritually' if you will), self-blame is the necessary precursor to the acceptance of forgiveness, from God or anyone else.

I'm taking "self-blame" as a synonym for "guilt." I've read through the responses to your OP (original post). People have discussed ethical, social, and psychological factors. My personal take is ethical. As I see it, guilt, saying "I'm sorry," and asking for forgiveness are cheating. They represent an attempt to get oneself off the hook by accepting and possibly wallowing in the "punishment" of self-reproach. Here's what I see as the proper response if one causes unjustifiable harm to someone else. 1) acknowledge and take responsibility for the act and it's consequences; 2) to the extent it's possible, make things right; 3) express remorse if it's likely to help the person affected; 4) accept any reasonable punishment; 5) don't do it again.

it depends. One can blame oneself for almost anything, including good actions. So, to me it is obvious, right off, that it can be bad to blame yourself. Then it depends on what blame yourself means. If you punched someone for no good reason and you realized this didn't feel/seem right to you, and self-blame means that you feel back about this for some limited period of time, such that you don't act violently in the future....sounds good to me.

If you spend a couple of years in depression, blaming yourself and considering yourself a bad person and you never really get at the roots of your rage and reaction...sounds not so good to me.

There's taking responsibiliy, which can often be good, but might be misapplied.
There's guilt, which, in my use of the word, is not helpful to yourself or anyone.
There's regret, which, if appropriate, is a good thing.

Taking responsibility to me means realizing, knowing and perhaps telling others that you did X or you are responsibile for Y happening. That's generally good, if the 'analysis' is correct.
Guilt to me means feeling like you are bad, but without really resolving the issue.
Regret, as long as you actually did something that is unkind, etc., seems good to me. You're not focused on your own nature and drawing some final conclusion. You're focused on your behavior, realizing you don't like it, hopefully understanding where it came from, and via regret should be less likely to do it again. Not because you walk around hating yourself, but because you really looked at, felt into and regretted what you did and the urge doesn't come again.

How exactly will one misapply responsibility?

How exactly will one misapply responsibility? — Nimish

An example. You break up with someone. it doesn't feel good, you fight a lot. You don't do this meanly. You just break up. The person commits suicide. If you take responsibility for that you're making a mistake. You're applying responsibility to yourself and you shouldn't. It's misappled.

If you mocked them, and told people false stories about the person, etc., you might not be responsible for their death, but you would be responsible for that behavior.