Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (60712)	10/2/2002 5:58:12 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in our social duty with respect to the law. Doing good for altruistic or other reasons ultimately boils down to you doing good (with or without respect to yourself.) I don't think our laws are set up to recognize that a doctor stopping to help you shouldn't be LATER held to a different standard, ignoring his intent (that's what's supposed to matter according to most legal theory...) Quite honestly, my emergency tracheotomy is better performed by a doctor, yet the law punishes them for doing so (relative to risk that other people have to put up with). Oughtn't all this stuff be consistent? It is possibly better to encourage people to help DESPITE the outcome but frankly, I really don't care all that much about intent because I can never know anyone's intent. What I care about is net outcome because that can be measured. If people who favored war had to spend 8 weeks in that war, there would be less war. It doesn't matter whether war is intrinsically good or bad, because that can't be objectively proven. Every person would know on the battlefield of their choice whether they personally felt that the risk they assumed was worth it.