Interesting to see this discussed in a framework about attribution.
If you’re willing to engage in a little thought experiment, what levels of responsibility would you consider in this scenario:
Alice was invited to Bob’s birthday party. Bob’s parents prepared the party and a birthday cake, but they didn’t know Alice has a severe peanut allergy. During the party Alice ate the birthday cake, which contained peanut, and was hospitalized for a couple of months.
In this scenario I don’t think Bob’s parents are responsible—because as you said in a previous post, one person cannot be expected to be responsible for what’s going on in another’s body.
But what about this alternative scenario:
Bob’s parents bought a birthday cake from a bakery—which (if we’re living in a developing country and things like FDA don’t exist) didn’t label its nutrition and allergy-related facts; everything else is still the same.
In this case I’d consider the bakery to be legally and morally responsible: since they’re serving potentially unlimited customers, failure to consider such important facts should not be excused by pleading ignorance.
Like allergies, depression can cause otherwise insignificant remarks/criticisms to be harmful to a patient than otherwise healthy people, since depressed people engage in more negative thinking about themselves than healthy people. I’m not a medical professional so please correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m only extending my personal experience with evidence.
My case is that since internet comments are directed to an unlimited amount of audience, we should use some caution in our words when speaking publicly, even if it’s only potentially harmful to other people, intentional or not.
(Also I downvoted the parent comment since it’s using unnecessary politics and tribalism as a way to avoid conversation, which isn’t something we should encourage as a community)
Interesting to see this discussed in a framework about attribution.
If you’re willing to engage in a little thought experiment, what levels of responsibility would you consider in this scenario:
Alice was invited to Bob’s birthday party. Bob’s parents prepared the party and a birthday cake, but they didn’t know Alice has a severe peanut allergy. During the party Alice ate the birthday cake, which contained peanut, and was hospitalized for a couple of months.
In this scenario I don’t think Bob’s parents are responsible—because as you said in a previous post, one person cannot be expected to be responsible for what’s going on in another’s body.
But what about this alternative scenario:
Bob’s parents bought a birthday cake from a bakery—which (if we’re living in a developing country and things like FDA don’t exist) didn’t label its nutrition and allergy-related facts; everything else is still the same.
In this case I’d consider the bakery to be legally and morally responsible: since they’re serving potentially unlimited customers, failure to consider such important facts should not be excused by pleading ignorance.
Like allergies, depression can cause otherwise insignificant remarks/criticisms to be harmful to a patient than otherwise healthy people, since depressed people engage in more negative thinking about themselves than healthy people. I’m not a medical professional so please correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m only extending my personal experience with evidence.
My case is that since internet comments are directed to an unlimited amount of audience, we should use some caution in our words when speaking publicly, even if it’s only potentially harmful to other people, intentional or not.
(Also I downvoted the parent comment since it’s using unnecessary politics and tribalism as a way to avoid conversation, which isn’t something we should encourage as a community)
-