Nicht Schuldik, Again?
Not quite, not quite in that way. Not guilty because one follows orders to their conclusion, resulting in a condition whereby the order-follower becomes the instrument of chaos, destruction, mass deaths rather than follow the higher order of moral compulsion is not quite the same as casual neglect causing personal harm. It's on an order of scale. Some might argue that pilfering a paperclip from a place of work is only different in scale from robbing a bank, since the process is the same: taking what is not yours to take.
It's a silly argument, really. On the other hand, when a paperclip gives way to a stapler, then a computer absents itself from the workplace, and finally funds are embezzled, what then? Take one casual, slight short-cut, or one little item not lawfully yours because it doesn't 'matter', then the temptation is always there to go on and continue this fallacious reasoning. You do what you know you should not, because there has been no ill result. So you do it again. And again, going on to bigger and better things. Taking chances.
If a parent fails to take the most elemental precautions to ensure the safety of a child, most often nothing will go awry; the law of averages will kick in and the child will still be safe, despite the parent's temporary lack of oversight. There are always so many pressures as a parent to ensure a child's well-being is not compromised. There are always so many pressures as a parent to have a little time-out, a little time to oneself. So much time is given over to the needs of children.
But - if disaster occurs, as does happen from time to time, when a fire breaks out in an apartment housing two sleeping infants while the parent has stepped out momentarily to run to the corner store, there is no re-thinking the faulty decision-making. Turn your eye for a moment and an impulsive child will run onto a busy road. It doesn't, in fact, take much. We have a way of rationalizing, that our slight absence of attention will have no consequences.
Sometimes, though, it does. And so the parents of the missing child Madeleine McCann held a recent press conference speaking of their feelings of guilt for not having been present to guard their three infants when one of them was abducted, while they dined at an establishment a mere stone's throw from where their sleeping children were housed. What, after all, might be the chances something untoward could happen?
In fact, any chance, however minimal, still means that there is a chance that something might go wrong. The first thing that went wrong is that the parents decided not to take advantage of a child-sitting service available at the location they were in. They were in a foreign country, with no real knowledge of what might conceivably go wrong, in any event. So, submitting to the appeal to absent themselves temporarily from the presence of their sleeping children resulted in any parent's absolute nightmare.
Tragedy strikes whether or not responsible parents are always on the alert. But if tragedy can be averted because those parents are always on the alert, then that is reason enough to engage responsibly at all times. You lessen the opportunity for mishaps - and abductions can and do happen anywhere and everywhere; there are seldom warning signs that this is about to occur. Anyone planning such an odious act does so carefully, stalking his victim, moving with stealth, choosing to act when he observes himself to be free to do so.
The parents of Madeleine McCann allowed that they will forever live with the guilt they feel as a result of not being present at that particular moment in their anguished history. Had they been aware and present their child would never have been taken from them. Their guard was down, they felt relaxed and for whatever reason, assured that no ill would befall their children. This is, after all, a normal, common, human situation, one which many succumb to, without ill result.
But to also say, as they have done that "I don't feel we were irresponsible. I feel we are very responsible parents", is something else again. They may not feel irresponsible, and likely they are not. But the fact of the matter is they were not as responsible as they should have been, when they should have been. They admit to feeling guilt, but they don't feel they are guilty. In this life you can't have it both ways.
The verdict, lamentably, is: Guilty. You have children? above all, have a care.
It's a silly argument, really. On the other hand, when a paperclip gives way to a stapler, then a computer absents itself from the workplace, and finally funds are embezzled, what then? Take one casual, slight short-cut, or one little item not lawfully yours because it doesn't 'matter', then the temptation is always there to go on and continue this fallacious reasoning. You do what you know you should not, because there has been no ill result. So you do it again. And again, going on to bigger and better things. Taking chances.
If a parent fails to take the most elemental precautions to ensure the safety of a child, most often nothing will go awry; the law of averages will kick in and the child will still be safe, despite the parent's temporary lack of oversight. There are always so many pressures as a parent to ensure a child's well-being is not compromised. There are always so many pressures as a parent to have a little time-out, a little time to oneself. So much time is given over to the needs of children.
But - if disaster occurs, as does happen from time to time, when a fire breaks out in an apartment housing two sleeping infants while the parent has stepped out momentarily to run to the corner store, there is no re-thinking the faulty decision-making. Turn your eye for a moment and an impulsive child will run onto a busy road. It doesn't, in fact, take much. We have a way of rationalizing, that our slight absence of attention will have no consequences.
Sometimes, though, it does. And so the parents of the missing child Madeleine McCann held a recent press conference speaking of their feelings of guilt for not having been present to guard their three infants when one of them was abducted, while they dined at an establishment a mere stone's throw from where their sleeping children were housed. What, after all, might be the chances something untoward could happen?
In fact, any chance, however minimal, still means that there is a chance that something might go wrong. The first thing that went wrong is that the parents decided not to take advantage of a child-sitting service available at the location they were in. They were in a foreign country, with no real knowledge of what might conceivably go wrong, in any event. So, submitting to the appeal to absent themselves temporarily from the presence of their sleeping children resulted in any parent's absolute nightmare.
Tragedy strikes whether or not responsible parents are always on the alert. But if tragedy can be averted because those parents are always on the alert, then that is reason enough to engage responsibly at all times. You lessen the opportunity for mishaps - and abductions can and do happen anywhere and everywhere; there are seldom warning signs that this is about to occur. Anyone planning such an odious act does so carefully, stalking his victim, moving with stealth, choosing to act when he observes himself to be free to do so.
The parents of Madeleine McCann allowed that they will forever live with the guilt they feel as a result of not being present at that particular moment in their anguished history. Had they been aware and present their child would never have been taken from them. Their guard was down, they felt relaxed and for whatever reason, assured that no ill would befall their children. This is, after all, a normal, common, human situation, one which many succumb to, without ill result.
But to also say, as they have done that "I don't feel we were irresponsible. I feel we are very responsible parents", is something else again. They may not feel irresponsible, and likely they are not. But the fact of the matter is they were not as responsible as they should have been, when they should have been. They admit to feeling guilt, but they don't feel they are guilty. In this life you can't have it both ways.
The verdict, lamentably, is: Guilty. You have children? above all, have a care.
Labels: Human Fallibility
posted by Pieface | 2:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home