This may sound naive and I'm not a native english speaker, but recently I've started wondering what people really mean by the notion of "fault", for example in the context of saying "it's someone's fault". In what kind of worldview it has any meaning and what place it's got in a social sphere.
So, I'll be honest, sometimes I really don't understand such statements and it appears as just a tool to discriminate someone on empty grounds and I don't see it having any place in a proper philosophical discourse. When I read someone's statements like "it's USSR fault for invading Poland in the beginning of ww2", it doesn't really make any sense to me.
Like, is this something related to Christianity and people just extrapolate this notion to the whole world and all the people (from their experience in local Christian community)? Or do such people think they are "owed" something by other people?
I don't want it to become a political question, but the example above with Poland is pretty simple. Why would someone assume one country owes something to another country and would do something to hurt their interests in favor of another country? People don't do things for no reason. Their decisions are based on something. More than that probably every decision or action impacts some people in good way and some people in bad way (or not just people), hence there would always be this kind of "fault" towards someone/something. And then this kind of "fault" could be propagated endlessly and the term becomes meaningless.
Or do people maybe mean the very "primary" consequences of an action and kinda omit everything that lead to this action?
Or do people maybe use it implying the "harm" towards some specific group of people? Synonymously: "it's your fault that happened" = "your decision lead to this something happening which impacted specifically me/some group of people in a bad way"? If that's the case, then why is it so ambiguous? How would anyone guess from such statement what who/what/what kind of group of people are being "hurt"? (If there's always someone's interests hurt by any actions)? And then that would be an absolutely neutral term, just a statement that event A happened and caused event B. But people usually imply something negative by such statements, as if excepting some kind of compensation for this event B happening because of A.
What I mean, this notion is not universal, not something rational and can't possibly be. Is this just a meaningless "smalltalk"? Or is this really just a way for people to get something out of their situation for free by bamboozling someone with how it's their "fault" so they should give some kind of compensation?