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

Re: tom's situ

Expand Messages
  • Tom
    ... I don t really think that the passengers are being rewarded for their ignorance. I don t see how you are formulating that idea. They are being saved and
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: Jarod_Rollins@... (Jarod Rollins)
      >
      > tom writes:
      > >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.

      I don't really think that the passengers are being rewarded for their
      ignorance. I don't see how you are formulating that idea. They are being
      saved and hence awarded continued life. Their ignorance is not directly
      related to the crashing train. Hence, the crashing train is not a direct
      result of their ignorance. My comment was to counteract the assumption that
      the train passengers are in some way less worthy of life due to their
      perceived ignorance.
      ..
      > 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 $$$...

      I agree with you that from an emotional viewpoint, the bond between a father
      and his daughter is far more "preferable" to that of a bond of money.
      However, I hadn't used the word "bond" in relation to the train company. I
      am distancing myself from emotional response and merely seeing the
      daughter's reliance (and reliance alone) on her father to keep her safe as
      being the same as the passengers' reliance on the train company. To my
      mind, the emotions associated with those two reliances are neither here nor
      there. Neither is the amount of money exchanged. I see the "reliance" as
      being seperate from both those issues.

      However, if you do take the emotions into consideration then why is one bond
      more sacred than the bonds that may exist between the train passengers that
      would subsequently cease to exist entirely in place of the permanent
      (without considering an afterlife :-) cessation of the single
      father/daughter bond?

      > 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...)

      Yes, the man does not know if there are children on the train.

      > 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.

      There haven't necessarily been promises. I wouldn't assume that. There
      have only been assumptions. That is, the daughter has assumed the father
      will keep her safe and the passengers have assumed that the train company
      will give them a safe ride. The train company was most likely ignorant to
      the lack of safety in the train ride. I would therefore assume that the
      train company has also assumed that the journey would be safe.

      > 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 deception. Two wrongs don't make a right. The reasonably
      > deducted existentialist thing to do would be:
      > 1. let train people die, poor deceived souls that they were
      > 2. daughter lives, perhaps scarred for life by such a tragedy, but free
      > to make her own choices/mistakes just as the passengers were
      > 3. father spends his life educating the ignorant on the dangers of
      > train travel.

      Two wrongs don't make a right? But in this case, one "wrong" makes a
      "right" as in pragmatic terms, the other wrong - or at least its effects -
      cease to exist. Statistically, train travel would seem more safe than many
      other forms. Therefore, why should the father educate people in the way you
      suggest? His educating would most likely have far less impact than the
      sacrifice of his daughter. Perhaps the sacrifice of his daughter would be
      education to the train company and future train travellers in itself?

      Further to the above, the deception does not necessarily stem entirely from
      a verifiable single source.

      Does existentialism throw pragmatism to the wind completely?

      Just one point - there is confusion between the two ways of looking at the
      situation. The first is that you are assigning the father's actions varying
      degrees of validity from the third person. The second is that you are
      imagining that you are the father. The second of course, is the only valid
      path for the existentialist. Isn't it? I'm not too sure on that.

      Tom
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.