system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Was The Dude ethically or morally entitled to get a rug from The Big Lebowski?

In case you haven't seen the movie: Bunny Lebowski is the much-younger wife of wealthy (sort-of) businessman Jeffrey Lebowski. She owes money all over town, including to known pornographers. Some of these people she owes money to sends a couple of goons to collect on her debt. However, the goons mistakenly visits the wrong Jeffrey Lebowski: not the wealthy businessman, but instead our hero, an unemployed and semi-professional bowler nicknamed The Dude (also His Dudeness or El Duderino, for those not into the whole brevity thing).

The two toughs assault The Dude and one of them, a Asian-American named Woo, procedes to micturate all over The Dude's rug. This was a valued rug (it really tied the room together), and The Dude is upset and wants renumeration. He realizes he is unlikely to get it from Woo, as the goons are presumably members of organized crime.

However, in discussing the issue, The Dude's friend and bowling partner Walter Sobchak points out that the one that the people really at fault here is the other Lebowskis: Bunny has acted irresponsibly and as a result, Woo peed on the dude's rug. Woo intended to soil The Big Lebowski's rug, not The Dude's. In addition, The Big Lebowski is a very wealthy man, and could very easily compensate The Dude, and as the husband of Bunny has a moral obligation to do so.

Sobchak summarizes his argument as follows: 

> "Jeff Lebowski. The other Jeffrey Lebowski. The millionaire. Plus, he has the wealth, obviously, and the resources. So there's no reason, no [redacted] reason why his wife should go out and owe money all over town, and then they come and they pee on your [redacted] rug. Am I wrong? Am I wrong? That rug really tied the room together, did it not?"

The other Jeffrey Lebowski is not impressed with this argument, responding "Did I urinate on your rug?". He feels he is not personally responsible for Woo's actions, and therefore feels that he is in no way responsible for compensating The Dude.

Numerous complications follow from these initial events, but I'm curious as to what your take is from a standpoint of moral and ethical obligation. Who is has the stronger argument here, Sobchak or The Big Lebowski?
gpt
Sort of. Maybe.

The Big Lebowski is enabling his wife's irresponsible behavior. While he could not foresee the specific consequences of this morally blameworthy behavior, he could foresee that bad things would happen to people due to his behavior. Woo urinating on The Dude's rug is one such consequence.

Because the causal connection is remote, the responsibility is attenuated. There are after all, many intervening agents: Bunny, Woo and Jackie Treehorn.

You can here take a number of positions. One would be that all agents who behaved unethically in the causal chain have joint responsibility. Basically, they jointly have a responsibility for getting The Dude a rug and if someone in the chain refuses to do what is right, it's up to the rest to still get The Dude his rug. So given that Bunnie has no money of her own and Jackie and Woo are unlikely to pony up, then The Big Lebowski owes The Dude a rug.

Another view is that they share the responsibility but not jointly. Basically, The Big Lebowski owes The Dude less than a full rug, but more than nothing. If Woo, Jackie and Bunnie don't pay their share, that's The Dude's problem, not The Big Lebowski's.

Another view finally is that because other moral agents acted badly downstream from The Big Lebowski's actions, he actually is not responsible at all. Basically, The Big Lebowski did a bad thing in enabling his wife, but that did not imply that Woo had to pee on the rug. Woo did that of his own volition as an independent moral agent. So he soaks up all the responsibility.