<p>Consider this situation:</p>
<p>A boy gets injured due to a bully. Instead of blaming the bully, people say it's the boy's fault because he should've stood up for himself.</p>
<p>A similar situation can be made with animal abuse. Normally people blame the criminal for being cruel. However, another possible argument can be that it simply happened because the animal wasn't strong enough to fight back. Since morals and laws are only social constructs and not the physical restrictions in nature, all that is fair game. If the roles were reversed and some other species was dominant of humans, that species could've easily done the same.</p>
<p>And that mindset of all is fair game can be applied to many different scenarios, small or big, such as slavery.</p>
<p>On one hand, it feels like the Just World Hypothesis because you get what you deserve for not being strong enough, although it implies that the weak will most likely be abused, which should not happen in a Just World. Compared to getting your backpack stolen because you left it unattended in which leaving it unattended can be reasonably argued as your fault, simply being weak is not reasonable to be considered a mistake or fault.</p>
<p>If someone yet still believes that it's the victims' fault in the above scenarios, assuming they have basic good judgment, would the Just World Hypothesis still be able to explain that?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T00:26:54.037Z
Possible duplicate of: [When does Just World Theory apply?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/15598/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T08:46:27.803Z
I think the question is too complex and should be splitted. Anyway it seems more related to the Locus of control in my opinion. Try to check Responsibility OCD, Hyper-responsibility Syndrome, hyper accountability
Revious
<criminology>
Would this situation/mindset fall under the Just World Hypothesis?
No Name
# Would this situation/mindset fall under the Just World Hypothesis?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-22)

Consider this situation:

A boy gets injured due to a bully. Instead of blaming the bully, people say it's the boy's fault because he should've stood up for himself.

A similar situation can be made with animal abuse. Normally people blame the criminal for being cruel. However, another possible argument can be that it simply happened because the animal wasn't strong enough to fight back. Since morals and laws are only social constructs and not the physical restrictions in nature, all that is fair game. If the roles were reversed and some other species was dominant of humans, that species could've easily done the same.

And that mindset of all is fair game can be applied to many different scenarios, small or big, such as slavery.

On one hand, it feels like the Just World Hypothesis because you get what you deserve for not being strong enough, although it implies that the weak will most likely be abused, which should not happen in a Just World. Compared to getting your backpack stolen because you left it unattended in which leaving it unattended can be reasonably argued as your fault, simply being weak is not reasonable to be considered a mistake or fault.

If someone yet still believes that it's the victims' fault in the above scenarios, assuming they have basic good judgment, would the Just World Hypothesis still be able to explain that?

**Tags:** criminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Possible duplicate of: [When does Just World Theory apply?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/15598/7001)  
> **username_2**: I think the question is too complex and should be splitted. Anyway it seems more related to the Locus of control in my opinion. Try to check Responsibility OCD, Hyper-responsibility Syndrome, hyper accountability  

---

## 0 answers

