A Victim of Circumstances

We say that an act is compulsory when a person is helpless and someone else is pulling the strings. But if we examine it closer, we have to ask what the person got out of it. If it was a gift rather than some kind of extortion, the act would be considered voluntary. It really depends on the particulars for a person to be considered a victim.

A person might be able to say that some kind of pleasure took over or some kind of righteous cause compelled him to do it as an easy way to avoid responsibility. A person given to this way of thinking will take credit for the things that make him look good as though they were voluntary while passing blame for things that make him look bad as though they were involuntary. In reality, the things forced on us that we hate and the things we do by mistake that we feel bad about later are compulsory. When the compulsion comes wholly from outside forces and the person didn't have anything to do with planning; he is justifiably called a victim.  

When ignorance is claimed is it always an involuntary act? Ignorance is only an excuse when there is repentance involved. A person who unwittingly does something and then refuses to acknowledge that it was wrong certainly isn't a victim. Can a person who is drunk or in a rage use the excuse of ignorance and claim to be a victim of his own actions?  A little intrigue until next time…