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

> pcg
> I guess we just disagree, then.

Yes.

>>> 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.
>
> Of course, possible negative consequences for the firefighters,
> personally, have zero relation to whether or not they have a moral
> obligation. I should hope we can at least agree on *that.*

I don't think it is that black and white.  Are you saying the firefighters
were obliged to save the house regardless of the consequences?  Even at
cost of life and limb and job and livelihood?  It's just a house for
goodness sake.

>> I think that should help mitigate
>> any moral obligation you think they may have.
>
> Ah, ain't life so much easier when we can mitigate our moral obligations?
> :^P

Yes.  :-)

> Look, I'm not discounting the possible societal reverberations you
> guys have raised. The questions about who, then, will buy the services
> in the future, etc., are worth looking at and hammering out. But there
> is simply no reason these questions could not have been hammered out
> *after* everyone pulled together like reasonable human beings to save
> a family's home from destruction. *Then* dust yourselves off,
> acknowledge that a problem here exists, and go from there.

Fair point.  You view this as a one time occurrence, never to happen
again.   I don't agree, but I can understand your point.

>> 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.
>
> Why would anyone have been running into the building? There was nobody
> inside, right? And they were already in proximity of the fire, because
> they were defending the neighbor's house.

The details for the nature of the fire, how the fire was to be fought are
unknown.  Given that I don't know all the risks, I'm obliged to give the
firefighters the benefit of the doubt.

>>> 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.
>
> I can't discount your opinion, but I call shenanigans on that. I have
> a feeling that if your home was burning to the ground and some guy was
> leaning on your fencepost holding a firehouse, but refused to point it
> in your direction, you'd consider that guy an asshole. I believe
> anyone would.

Well, such a guy wouldn't have much to lose by doing so.  But this
situation isn't like that.
If I were in this homeowners place, and I hadn't paid the fire company...I
know I'd feel like the asshole.  stupid stupid stupid.  And I'd hear no
end of it from my wife.  :-)

regards,
-Lance


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