Did you bother to read what I said?
Welcome to the internet.So I say you're wrong and you say I'm wrong.
What are you going to do about it? Nothing you can do. Period.
Of course I did.Did you bother to read what I said?
Yes this is true, but the issue of morality comes into play because this group of workers happen to be people in charge of protecting from fire, the livelihood / lives of people. These firefighters arrived at the scene, put fire out from a tree on the neighbors yard, and then watched a family's life burn down in front of them with four animals inside the house. So clearly your idea of the title does not do justice to the issue.What this title should read is "Group of workers are not paid to perform a service, and as such, do not perform said service."
That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.Also to clarify I side with the idea that this fire department should have a system where if they report to a fire on private property, that has not paid, whoever owns that property must pay the full expenses of resources used by the firefighters in putting the fire out.
I like the complete about face: initially claiming that all possibilities are equally valid then suddenly claiming that one system is 'definitely better'.That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.
There is absolutely no reason to claim they are separate issues. You can claim they're doing the right/wrong thing, or you can claim that both positions are equally valid.Billy, did you even read my posts?
Before I was broadly discussing the ethics (or rather the innocence) of inaction.
Now I am discussing the economics/financing/servicing policy of non-public fire-fighting services.
There is no hypocrisy because these are two completely separate issue. My opinions on the first issue regarding ethics, has nothing to do with my views on business models and policy plans. It is clear that a deep fine policy system makes far more economic sense than letting houses burn or trying to "make examples" of people.
There is a round-about connection between the two, but they are essentially separate issues. Please try to follow the thread of discussion.
Summarized: (personal opinion statement) There is no evil in inaction. Helping others is a good act that comes from one's own will to do good. There is nothing unethical about not helping.Sorry cantab, and I hate grouping people and making wide generalizations-- but you brought Britain in the picture, and frankly I hate it when Europeans try to shove their values and concept of what "human decency" is on other cultures and societies.
The act of "helping others" is a great act because it is something you choose to do of your own will.
The act of "not choosing to help others," is frankly not evil. I find the your concept of "moral obligation" ridiculous-- you help others because it is good and so you choose to do so, but simply not choosing to do so, being inactive, is not wrong.
What is wrong is thinking you have the right to tell people that they have an "obligation to help others," when helping others is something you do out of voluntary good will.
Summarized: A heavy fine system makes more sense than inaction because it makes the fire department money.That would definitely be a better system, though I think the fine should be much more-- probably significantly more expensive than just paying for the resources. It is not enough to just "break even" economically. You have to pay for people's time and effort as well, and in this case, it would be inpart a fine/penalty for precuring servies without properly paying for them. I would say it should be at least double the expenses, expenses including the daily salaries of the fire fighters involved.
You pay the mechanic when he fixes your car, you do not pay a yearly toll.This has been repeated many times? How exactly are they assholes? Because they are not doing a job that they were not fucking paid to do? Get that through your heads. If you refuse to pay someone, they do not have to do it. It's like going to a mechanic when your car breaks down, asking them to fix it, and when they refuse they are now an asshole.
You pay the mechanic when he fixes your car, you do not pay a yearly toll.
Your argument is invalid, try again you dumb shit.
it's like
The difference is that your car breaking down won't destroy thousands of dollars worth of real estate, and usually won't kill pets and damage your neighbours property.It's like going to a mechanic when your car breaks down, asking them to fix it, and when they refuse they are now an asshole.
A probably imbecile question, but is there in USA a law forcing you to help your brother when in life/death need?The difference is that your car breaking down won't destroy thousands of dollars worth of real estate, and usually won't kill pets and damage your neighbours property.