Khross wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Anyone who makes the decision not to intervene under the basis that it is "unsafe", well, I cannot second-guess them. Anyone who makes the decision not to intervene under the fear that they will be punished or sued is a bloody coward.
How is the bus driver not in the set of "Anyone"?
He is in the set. However, I do not know his motivations, therefore I do not know if he failed to intervene under fear of punishment or being sued. Not knowing his motivations, I can't say if I think he's a coward or not.
Quote:
More to the point, let's look at your further attempts to clarify yourself.
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
First, life is more important than financial security.
Why? How are you valuing life? Is it all life? All human life? All human life above any of numerous possible thresholds? What's the definition of life here? Those are all questions you should be able to casually answer; after all, this is a clearly defined standard you're trying to convey to me.
Because it is. This is fundamental. Life? Human life. Any life. And please don't get crazy with this - remember we're talking about a kid on a bus. Would I risk my life for a death row inmate on his way to the chair? No - let's not get crazy.
Quote:
That said, why is one individual's life more valuable than the bus driver's financial security?
Any life is more valuable.
Quote:
What obligations does the bus driver have?
Obligations to the kid? None. Financial obligations? No idea. Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Who does he support? Do you know?
No idea. Doesn't matter.
Quote:
Is it possible that the risk of financial security has a larger net negative impact? Do you know?
Well, I suppose if there were some weird scenario where if he lost his job driving a bus it would necessarily cause the deaths of others, I would relent that this could be considered one of those case-by-case basis evaluations. I'm somewhat skeptical - hope you understand.
Quote:
There is an uncertainty in the immediate outcome. One certainty, of intervening, is that the parents of any child accosted or disciplined by the bus driver would sue. The parents would seek charges. The bus driver would lose his job. That outcome is not in question; that is what would happen.
It's very much in question. You don't know this. I know you pretend like you can predict the future, but this is not certain. Look up the word "certain" if you think otherwise.
Quote:
So, again, we know the man loses his job; we know that in this economic climate and at his age, the man becomes unemployable for the rest of his life. This is not speculation: these things are certain.
Hardly.
Quote:
Quote:
Because, as I have stated before, society's job is to protect society's children - we are all part of this.
We are? Exactly what role do I play in their continued existence? Despite all this talk of a global economy, it's probably closer to negative than 0.
Do you not support the government? Do you support, either voluntarily or against your will, their protection of children? Of course you do. And are you not morally obligated to help those in need where you can? This includes children. Are you not expected by society to lift a finger to help if a child needs it? Do you think society would support you turning your back on a child in an easier decision, such as a lost crying child in the mall? Society expects you to protect children, and society demands you support its collective efforts to enforce protections.
Quote:
Quote:
Because you can help your own situation or seek help down the line, but the child cannot help himself in the current situation.
What if the child molested one of their sisters, instead of just being a garden variety good kid? What if the child had started the fight? What if he was spewing racial profanities before the fight? Why did the fight start? Did you know before follow-up media coverage? Do you think the bus driver knew?
It's irrelevant.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Because it's the right thing to do from a religious perspective.
From your religious perspective; there are those who would preach non-violence. There are those who would demand vengeance.
There are those - I don't. Who's view are we talking about here?
Quote:
Arathain wrote:
Because it's the right thing to do from an honorable perspective.
How is it honorable to place yourself in harms way for someone who may or may not be innocent? Whose definition of honor are we using, by the way?
Mine, of course - and yes, it is honorable to protect a child in need.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Because it is the right thing to do from a personal perspective (nobody here would turn away without feeling they were possibly doing something wrong).
I think there are posts enough to suggest disagreement on this point.
I don't believe them.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Because any of you would want someone to do the same for your child in similar circumstances.
That's rather presumptuous of you; are you certain? It seems a rather safe bet, but there's always the possibility you're wrong.
Lot's of things are possible. How about we stick with the safe bets, which, as we know, most reasonable people will base their actions and opinions on.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Because the world is a better place when thugs do not feel they can run the place.
That's probably true, but all this "because" is really just ... wait, I know ... I'll quote you.
The bus driver is a coward:
I've never said that. Keep trying.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Because long term difficulty is far more preferable than living in shame.
For you, that valuation may be true. But really, all you've said is ...
You don't like what this reality says about the society you live in. You don't like the fact that our overly litigious, overly zero-tolerance, knee-jerk regulation society dependent on government and rules and bureaucracy allows process and policy to get in the way of old fashioned common sense.
You're not telling us what society does; you're telling us how you want it to be.
It's a solid mix of both.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
