June 19, 2008
Egoist in Emergency Sacked, Mocked in Collectivist China
It should come as no surprise that the people of Communist China frown on egoistic behavior. Emergency situations are common strawmen for people who wish to claim that egoism is ethically corrupt. Of course, they fail to provide any persuasive argument for why a person should die trying to save strangers or strangers' children.
Reuters: Teacher fired for running from quake school
Apparently, the majority of China thinks they do have some grounds for making a claim on poor Fan's life. They were evil and wrong.
Post is locked.
Reuters: Teacher fired for running from quake school
BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese high school teacher has been fired and denounced by local media and Internet users for fleeing a classroom before his students during last month's devastating earthquake.Bravery is a fine trait in some contexts, but stupidity is not. I suppose if my child were in his class, I would be disappointed that he didn't try to save him, but I can't condemn his actions morally. I can only say that he didn't act to support my interests over his own and, really, what business have I to ask that in the first place?
Fan Meizhong, a Chinese-language teacher at a private high school in quake-ravaged Dujiangyan in southwest Sichuan province, has been branded "running Fan" on Internet chat-rooms and come under fire for defending his actions online in a lengthy post.
...
"At such a life-or-death moment, I would only consider sacrificing my life for my daughter. I would not do it for anyone else, even my mother," Fan wrote on popular online portal Tianya.cn ( http:/www.tianya.cn ).
...
Fan's account has enraged China, as it struggles to rebuild damaged cities and provide housing for millions of victims displaced by the quake.
"I know many teachers died protecting children during the earthquake... In this long essay, I can't see any 'person' here, I just see a big 'me'," a post in response to Fan's account said.
Apparently, the majority of China thinks they do have some grounds for making a claim on poor Fan's life. They were evil and wrong.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:34 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Did Fan work under a job description that held him responsible for the safety of the children in his classroom--perhaps as the captain of a ship would be responsible for his passengers and crewmen?
Posted by: Burgess Laughlin at June 19, 2008 05:19 PM (Htw5N)
2
I'm sure that GIANT earthquakes exceed any such expectations placed on a school teacher. Running with scissors, maybe. The earth opening up and swallowing the school, definitely not.
And I would place limitations on the expectations of a captain of a ship as well.
And I would place limitations on the expectations of a captain of a ship as well.
Posted by: Flibbert at June 19, 2008 08:27 PM (ru7wW)
3
A schoolteacher can reasonably have a legal duty to protect students. It depends on the agreement between the school and the parents. I think such a duty would be silly for high school age students.
But even if Fan did have a legal duty to protect the students, he did not have a moral duty to do so.
~Q
But even if Fan did have a legal duty to protect the students, he did not have a moral duty to do so.
~Q
Posted by: Qwertz at June 19, 2008 09:10 PM (877GL)
4
In a humongous natural disaster? That seems crazy to me, both legally and morally.
Like I said, I can understand protecting them from everyday classroom risks and even some moderately urgent situations and a very few emergencies, but a massive earthquake? Ridiculous.
Like I said, I can understand protecting them from everyday classroom risks and even some moderately urgent situations and a very few emergencies, but a massive earthquake? Ridiculous.
Posted by: Flibbert at June 19, 2008 09:39 PM (ru7wW)
5
Well, yeah. If school and parent have it in their agreement that school will do what it can to protect child in event of an emergency (e.g., the kid gets hurt on the playground, or chokes at lunch, or there is a tornado or a fire or something), then teacher (an agent of school) has that legal duty. But it's not always criminal to breach that duty. It is something parent could sue for afterwards.
But if there's a major earthquake, there's really very little teacher could have done to protect child anyway, is there? So teacher would probably be off the hook on the lawsuit, too.
Just because he has a legal duty doesn't necessarily mean he has a moral duty to fulfill his legal duty.
~Q
PS: How are earthquakes of any size "massive?"
But if there's a major earthquake, there's really very little teacher could have done to protect child anyway, is there? So teacher would probably be off the hook on the lawsuit, too.
Just because he has a legal duty doesn't necessarily mean he has a moral duty to fulfill his legal duty.
~Q
PS: How are earthquakes of any size "massive?"
Posted by: Qwertz at June 20, 2008 11:02 AM (oXrE3)
6
When the earthquake weighs a lot.
Posted by: Flibbert at June 20, 2008 11:07 AM (ErOeR)
7
mas·sive
1. consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy: massive columns.
2. large and heavy-looking: a massive forehead.
3. large in scale, amount, or degree: a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending.
4. solid or substantial; great or imposing: massive erudition.
5. Mineralogy. having no outward crystal form, although sometimes crystalline in internal structure.
1. consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy: massive columns.
2. large and heavy-looking: a massive forehead.
3. large in scale, amount, or degree: a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending.
4. solid or substantial; great or imposing: massive erudition.
5. Mineralogy. having no outward crystal form, although sometimes crystalline in internal structure.
Posted by: Flibbert at June 20, 2008 11:09 AM (ErOeR)
8
I still say the usage is faulty. "Massive breakdown in communications" and "massive reductions in spending" make no sense, either. I mean, if we're going to use the word metaphorically, we should at least do it in a way that makes sense. If something's going to be described as "massive," I expect it should be something with mass.
~Q
~Q
Posted by: Qwertz at June 22, 2008 05:55 PM (oXrE3)
9
I agree with that for certain contexts, but I find it acceptable in others.
Posted by: Flibbert at June 22, 2008 06:19 PM (NhUx4)
32kb generated in 0.0704 seconds; 69 queries returned 184 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
