Tempter, Tempted, and Accountability

For my Shakespeare class this week, we're reading the first three acts of Othello, in which a character named Iago conspires with several unwitting individuals to ruin the title character's life. Over the course of the play, Iago manipulates several individuals into participating in his evil plans, which makes me wonder: How do agency and accountability apply to this situation and others like it? When one person convinces another to do something wrong, who is at fault? If someone has to pay for the sin or the crime, who should, or how should the penalty be distributed?

My first thought is that the actual actor is responsible for his or her own actions. We each have the power to make our own decisions, regardless of what anyone says to anyone else. Everyone must answer for their own actions, regardless of how they became convinced to take those actions. Yet, what does that mean for the manipulator? Does the tempter get off scott free? Or perhaps the temptation is a sin unto itself, regardless of its success or failure.

Arguably, the manipulator should take the full blame for what happens. After all, it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for them. Just as a puppeteer is responsible for the actions of a puppet, the manipulator should be held at least somewhat responsible for the actions of the manipulated. But then, if the tempter takes some of the blame for the sin, does that diminish the blame of the tempted? Is a person less at fault for some evil thing they did because the devil told them to do it?

It's a thorny issue. One could argue that they're both to blame, but then justice would demand two punishments for one sin, which doesn't seem completely just, unless they each only receive a portion of the punishment, which doesn't seem fully just either.I like what I said earlier about the temptation itself being a sin, even if it's unsuccessful. That way, the tempter can get his just desserts, even as those tempted get theirs.

Granted, I may grant the tempted some leniency, based on the extent to which they, the tempted, knew what they were doing. If they knew that what they were doing was wrong, of course there should be justice for that, but if they were tricked into doing something wrong, when they thought they were doing something good or neutral, it stands to reason that that wrongdoing should be answered upon the head of whomever tricked the doer into doing it.

I don't think I'm going to come to any definite conclusions tonight, so I'll close with a warning to watch what we do and to be careful not to be manipulated into wrongdoing. There is a tempter around, and we will be held at least partly to blame for every temptation we fall into.