CDZ Variation on "Thompson's Violinist" analogy with POLL

Would the person who connects themself to the child be obligated to remain connected to the child?


  • Total voters
    6
Who said anything about forcibly restraining anyone?

Please stick to the OP.

I believe that a question to clarify meaning is a legitimate component of any discussion. Your scenario was an illustration of two adults knowingly engaging in an activity that causes one of them to become attached to, and responsible for a helpless child - is that not correct?

Even in a hypothetical question, such as yours, the means of obligation is absolutely relevant to the answer. Morally or legally? By choice or by law? (and all that 'by law' entails)

If that question is unacceptable within the parameters of your story - then I agree...we're done here.

We agree that it (the poll and the OP) is a rhetorical question that has both moral and legal implications.

However, you injected the part about "forcibly restraining" people and that is what I was objecting to. That's something that is not even being considered in the OP and that is what prompted my response.
 
Fair enough. I understand your response. It's fine. :)

When you invited folks to explain their reasoning - I took that at face value, and of course doing so meant that my reasoning might encompass points not specifically mentioned or even thought of by you.

My reasoning revolved around this specifically - if it is a legal obligation, required by law - there is usually a penalty of some sort for breaking that law. By what method is the obligation enforced, or, what is the punishment for breaking it? That may not have been your intent to address it, but obligation must be defined, as well as the penalty for not honoring that obligation. If none, then the obligation doesn't exist beyond ones conscience.

Perhaps a clearer answer - no - if that obligation is enforced by physical restraint (ie incarceration) or carries criminal penalty.

Morally? - absolutely yes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top