Twice Transgressed

There is a disturbing behavior that is often exhibited by many of us when we observe someone being victimized: rather than focus on the perpetrator and censure that person, we will often instead blame the victim. A woman is raped and people tend to ask what she did to invite the attack. A destitute homeless person is spotted on the street and we wonder if they are just a lazy bum who deserves that fate.

Why do we do this? Are we humans heartless beings who have no compassion for the victim? Isn't it bad enough that the sufferer was violated once? Why do we double their misery by accusing them of provoking their affliction? Most of us are most likely to be inclined to feel that the offense being experienced is unfortunate and even unwarranted, yet we still easily fall into the habit of blaming them for their troubles.

Psychologists tell us that no, we're not merciless. It's that, in these situations, we tend to adopt what's referred to as the “just-world bias.” This belief is prevalent in humans. It stems from the fact that we want to believe in a just world—that fairness prevails, that in the end the human world is an equitable place. This belief is driven partly by the fact that we humans want predictability; we don't like arbitrariness or injustice. We want to believe that we all get our just deserts—and many people believe that upon death, those who were good go to heaven, while the bad people deserve hell. We are finally rewarded or punished for our deeds. Justice prevails.

But the human world is often not fair. The fact is that some wicked people fare well, while some righteous folk get dumped on—think of Job in the Hebrew Bible. The Bible's psalms also frequently lament this unmerited result.
 
So when we encounter an injustice, when we see an innocent person suffer, it challenges our just-world bias; it creates a kind of cognitive dissonance in our head that is very uncomfortable. The result: rather than change our belief in a just world, it's easier to blame the victim. Maybe they aren't innocent; maybe they deserved what they got.

Let's consider if the belief in a just world is warranted. Let's turn to the natural world. The just-world belief leads some people to conclude that nature is often unjust. I do not agree when people consider natural acts—like earthquakes or floods—to be some form of punishment. I do not agree when people consider the killing of an antelope by a lion to be cruel. The natural world cannot be considered to be either just or unjust—it simply is. These acts do not need our trying to read some meaning into them.

On the other hand, the human world is quite often unjust. Dictators get away with murder. Bankers bilk the people and live a carefree life. The poor struggle to survive, as rich politicians cut welfare and export jobs elsewhere. I believe that injustice is very often common in the human world.

Researchers in this area find that people who feel a strong connection to a group are often more inclined to blame the victim, because they absorb the values of the group. And if the group has a just-world bias, it's very hard for its members to disagree with the group, because group beliefs can become fixed and rigid, and thus less likely to be challenged. Members are not inclined to go against the group's creed. This is especially true of conservative groups. 
 
I don't think that there is an easy answer to this problem. We all prefer to believe that the world is just. In 1965 Martin Luther King, Jr, in a speech in Alabama, said that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Was he right? Sometimes it seems doubtful; sometimes it seems that the moral arc of the human universe bends away from justice. Whatever the trend, it can help if we try to accept that iniquities do happen and turn our attention more to the perpetrator as we develop compassion for victims.