3 ms·
We can discuss morality endlessly. We have (collectively) agreed to use the law to assign guilt and mete judgement -- this the court case will bear out eventua
by infogulch 6y ago
We can discuss morality endlessly. We have (collectively) agreed to use the law to assign guilt and mete judgement -- this the court case will bear out eventually. What's left is the problem itself abstracted from the particulars of this case. And the best approach to solving this kind of problem, as evidenced by the aviation industry's miraculous safety record, is to consider the concept of assigning blame as out of scope because it shouldn't be the basis for our safety precautions. In this context, blame is something that distracts you from the real cause and can prevent you from looking more closely. Blame is a kind of 'bottom' argument which in practice is wielded to dismiss alternative perspectives and refuse to integrate their ideas.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- clairity 6y agothat's a good point. i'd add that even in the legal system, assigning blame is highly problematic because decisions are overwhelmingly pressured into being purely binary findings, whereas blame is nearly always shared by multiple entities. lawsuits would be much better if the "win-lose" dichotomy was entirely abolished in all its forms. in this case, the backup driver should shoulder some blame, but not the majority of it, and commensurately, should not face any of the harsh penalties associated with manslaughter.