Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

28Re: tom's situ

Expand Messages
  • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Jul 30, 1999
      tom writes:
      >The question of the ethics of the father's action seems also
      >to relate to that of the train operators. It is assumed that the child
      >is
      >not capable of making reasoned, in-depth decisions but why should it be
      >assumed that the train passengers are in a more "advanced" position?
      >Should
      >the train passengers really be penalised for their ignorance and hence
      >probable lack of awareness of the potential risks?
      You could just as easily say that the passengers are being rewarded for
      their ignorance, as they step blindly onto a massive speeding steam
      powered beamouth only to be saved by the sacifical insighful father and
      his puppet of a daughter. If not saving the trainfolk is punishment
      for their ignorance why on the other hand should the father be
      "punished" for his lack of ignorance? Ignorance is no excuse.

      > If the risks had never
      >even occurred to them then the train company would logically be put
      >into a
      >similar "paternal" role. That is, the train company's obligation to
      >ensure
      >the safety of the passengers (like that of the father for his daughter).
      >The risks may not have occured to the train company either....and so it
      >goes
      >on.....
      The similarites between a father/daughter relationship and a
      company/consumer relationship elludes me in this instance. How dare
      anyone compare the bond of love to the bondless bond of $$$...
      >Why should it be assumed that the child has any more right to ignorance
      >than
      >the train passengers?
      The daughter is assumed to have more right to her ignorance in this
      instance because her ignorance isn't going to kill her (unless it is
      taken advantage of). Also I belive that children have a right to
      ignorance that adults do not (but there could be children on the train,
      so i go on...)
      > To my mind, it's just an abstract idea that suits the
      >existentialist rather than a reasonable deduction.

      >Without introducing the concept of utility doesn't the child have no
      >more
      >rights than the passengers? The passengers have been deceived have they
      >not, much like the daughter would be deceived by her father?
      ok, so you are assuming that the passergers have been taken advantage
      of by the train company in that they were promised a safe ride just as
      a father promises his daughter a safe ride through life. Even under
      such an assumption the father trying to make up for the deception of
      the company by sacrificing his daughter to save the passengers is only
      furthering depeption. Two wrongs don't make a right. The reasonably
      deducted existentialist thing to do would be:
      1. let train people die, poor devieved souls that they were
      2. daughter lives,mayhaps scarred for life by such a tragedy, but free
      to make her own choices/mistakes just as the passergers were
      3. father spends his life educating the ignorant on the dangers of
      train travel.
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic