Re: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground

> pcg
>>> tangientially, do you really believe a matter of helping others is
>>> only a moral one if their life is at stake?)
>>
>> It is a difference of degree.  Morally, I feel more obligation to save
>> someone's life if I can, than to prevent him from losing property due to
>> his own foolish decision.
>
> But that's not the dilemma that was presented to these firefighters.

But it's the dilemma that you presented to me.  :-)

> Their dilemma was whether to help someone in desperate need, someone
> who didn't buy their help, or not.

But the need was not one of imminent threat to person, but only property. 
Is that worth the risk of liability (civil and criminal) and risk of
injury and harm to the firefighters?  I don't agree that they have a moral
obligation to do so.

> And they chose wrongly. It *is* moral cowardice and selfishness, and
> to paint it otherwise is to defend an unconscionable act.

says you.  As we have pointed out, there are potential negative
consequences (societal as well as to the firefighters) for doing so.   I
think that should help mitigate any moral obligation you think they may
have.

> You say you, personally, would help a neighbor whose house was burning
> down, but that the firefighters shouldn't have.

No, I said they don't have a moral obligation to.  Nor would I as a
helpful neighbor.  My wife might say to me..don't go help, you might get
killed..and I might weigh the situation and agree with her.  I don't think
I should be condemned for not running into a burning building.

> I say when any entity
> is doing something that no individual would or could defend, there is
> a problem. If I recall correctly, you are against corporations for
> that very reason.

I am.  But I don't think this is something that no individual would or
could defend.

regards,
-Lance




-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot