Tim Cook wrote:
> No, but if someone who is capable has declared themselves to be part of 
> a volunteer team whose function is to do that task, they should be 
> reasonably expected to perform that task when called upon if they're 'on 
> duty'.

OK.

>> Am I beginning to sound like I play too much Bioshock? ;-)
> 
> Eh...haven't played Bioshock, so I'm missing the reference.  I assume 
> something in-game's related?

One main character is stereotypical Ayn Rand objectionist type. He's 
constantly getting on the PA saying things like "Is a farmer not entitled to 
the sweat of his brow?"

> The obligation is there because that's what they've volunteered to do, 
> to bear that responsibility.  

They only volunteered to put out the fires of people who donated. Indeed, 
everybody knew that, or nobody else would have donated. You even got a 
sticker to put on your window to show it. :-)

> Yes, but the one doesn't make the other correct or nobler.  And a 
> firefighter's function is to preserve what life and property they can by 
> extinguishing fires.  Deciding someone is unworthy of help is something 
> you do after the fact. 

Not in this case. :-)

> Kind of the way hospitals are obligated to save 
> a patient's life whether they can pay or not if they come into the ER.

I'm pretty sure that's part of the law.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message