Stephen Chafi
1) Who's fault is it? If a drunk driver gets in a car wreck and injures or kills someone, who's fault is it. Does the responsibility get placed on the person who choose to drink and drive or does the blame get placed on the company that made the drink?
2) Why do people that are victimized by a problem not seek political change. Is it because they do not see the problem as changeable or do they not have the necessary resources to change this problem?
Tyler Ingley
1) Why is it that people prefer casual stories over complex stories? Have we been programmed in our democracy to accept the casual stories of politicians because they "seem" good at the time and they are not full of details?
2) Stone stated "We look for causes not only to understand how the world works but to assign responsibility for causes", he used the example of cigarette smokers to look deeper as to why society blames either the tobacco companies for all of the smoke related deaths or the smokers themselves for the deaths. Do you feel that the cause of deaths are the producers or consumers? Explain why the side you chose is the cause.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think its the person who chose to drink and then drive on top of that. When you are sober you have to make the choice to put alcohol in your system which you allegally know your doing. the drunk driver probally says they are alright to drive knowing in the back of their mind that they are extrememly plastered and drunk. alot of drunk driving accidents are due to people allowing their friiends to drive because they accept the plead of the drunk person to let them drive. this essentially leads to someone getting killed weather its the driver or the person who is hit by the car.
I think that blame is always on the consumer. I mean everyone knows that you shouldnt drink and drive, or what the bad things are that they put in cigarettes. Ya they may not be good products for you, but you bought them didnt you? No one is forced to drink or forced to smoke it is all by choice. Is Satan or God to blame for someone sinning? Or are those sins yours and youre the one to be held responsible on judgement day?
-Jordana Bradburn
Answer to Tyler's #2 Question:
I believe the blame belongs to both the producer and the consumer. People choose to smoke and the cigarette company chooses to market cigarettes as “good things” to make a profit. It is a fundamental issue of choice. People do not have to smoke, yet they do. Just like companies do not have to market addictive carcinogens as “sexy” or “cool”, yet they do. Six in one, half dozen in the other…the blame is equal if there is a conscious choice made by both parties.
2) My question is why do we look for someone to blame, or someone to sue. I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions. Manufacturers produce items that "may" be dangerous every day. If we were to blame the manufacturer every time a product killed or hurt someone, then who would have the guts to continue producing these "dangerous products" that in some cases are vital for everyday life. An example is a knife manufacture makes a knife set, someone buys it, someone cuts their finger off, is the manufacturer to blame. I think that would be ridiculous, it is the consumers responsibility to use cation when performing dangerous tasks/engaging in dangerous activities. The blame game is not moral, nor does it get you very far.
Answer to #1....I believe that the fault belongs to the drunk person that is driving the car, not the the manufacturer of the alcoholic product. people will always find a way to get a hold of mind altering substances, so it is ultimately the responsibility of the consumer to be responsible under the influence.
If a person get in to a car after he or she has been drinking it there fault to the max.I beleive that the company that made the drnk should have no blame placed on them at all because they were not the ones who were driving the car. The person that was drinking and driving is the one who should be blamed for the death of the innocent person that was killed. I have known people that have been killed or injured in accidents that involve drinking and driving and it is very hard to deal with. It is not worth it the person driving the car is a fault.
Tyler's questions,
1)i think that people seek casual stories over complex stories simply because they are more appealing and simple. when it comes to policy i think the more simple it sounds, the more appealing it is to people.
2)stone was explaining the process in which we, as a society, find problems in policy, prevent these problems from arising once again, and blame the causer. she also explains this for another point,"blaming the victim". for example, a young provacative looking woman is walking down a dark street at night and gets mugged. instead of blaming the preditor you could simply say,"what were you doing walking down a dark street dressed like that by yourself for?" but this however is an inadvertent cause because it is caused from avoidable ignorance and carelessness.
their are other types of casual theories that will change the source and reason of the problem on another party.
I think the responsibility belongs primarily to the drunk driver. Why should anyone else be obligated, legally or morally, to make sure that a person behaves responsibly? In some extreme cases, I can see how other people could be held responsible - if a bartender sends a stumbling drunk into the parking lot with his car keys, for example, that's pretty obviously something that he or she should have and could have prevented. But ultimately, society shouldn't be responsible for making sure the lowest common denominator stays out of trouble.
Post a Comment