If I killed a person, that person can be responsible for he exist. If he had not exist then I could not have killed him. So he by existing caused his own death.
What if you made a choice of free will to kill the man?
Pinnacle: Are you merely posing the question as a supposition or are you seriously implying that an individual causes or conditions their own existence? I think your statement renders the whole notion of moral responsibility meaningless. With your reasoning, one could, if one believes in God, simply blame God. Moral responsibility must be traceable to a causing/conditioning agent. Conversely, you couldn’t accept praise for helping anyone since the recipient, by the fact of his/her own existence, made your assistance possible. Morality thus becomes meaningless. Christ is to blame for his own crucifixion, the Jews and other victims of the Nazis are equally to blame for their own gruesome deaths. Perhaps we could have dual indictments and convictions for murder trials, for both murderer and victim. Of course, in the event of a ‘not-guilty’ verdict, we can’t resurrect the victim. Hey, wait a minute! Pilate and the Jewish rabble are definitely in no way responsible for Christ’s death. Witnesses testified that he rose from the dead for ‘Heaven’s sake!’ Death rescinded, penalty cancelled!!
Hallelujah! MRJ
MRJ
precisely, in terms of cause and effect, all things are causes. no one is entirely blameless. there is no such thing as moral responsiblity but an invention. why can’t someone blame God for causing the disasters and also blame one self. since no one is entirely blameless. it is only just to proportionally blame everyone.
What are you on about?
Wow. What a concept: Proportionally blame everyone!
As if we could quantify this blame you speak of. There is a degree of severity as to causes. The immediate causes, and the remote causes.
There is no killing without the object of killing. Because that object exists, then it is the cause of its own killing???
“killing” here being–there is the actor, the act, and the object. You got a state of affairs. Why insert blame here, though? You have to flesh out the scenario so you can see if “blame” fits here even.
I just found this thread again after forgetting about it
thanks for yet another laugh PoR
=D> =D> =D>
POR,
Are you not a Christian? What happened to the peaceful Christian doctrine. Or perhaps you should change religions. You seem to follow the Old Testament more than the new, how about Judaism?
POR exist, and by his logic, if I murder him it is his fault for existing. 
Let’s do trial and error to test POR’s theory.
POR, would you like to volunteer as the murderee?
LOL, arent you are bad! Love it.
I was curious and perused the pic thread for your picture, do you have one on the thread?
POR, do not feel bad, as I would like another on this blog to be first in line and I have a 357 magnum with hot mags in the cartridge
Smiles,
Aspacia,
That leaves me, arendt and MRJ
What are you even talking about?
If you intentionally kick a glass of milk, can we blame the glass for spilling itself by virtue of it being available for you to kick it?
Aspacia, you kick-ass, that’s all I want to say to you. And that says a lot. You got your feet planted on the ground, and wouldn’t it be cool if you really have that killer .357 magnum. 
OG,
We can have division of labor. Aspacia pulls the trigger, MRJ stands on the side and recite the theory, I double-check POR’s identity, and you proportionally divide the blame. 
You are blurring the distinction between pre-requisite and cause.
Existance is a pre-requisite of death.