In this post, I would like to press on the issues of obligations and morality.
Obviously reading the flow of events that brought to that devastatingly heart-wrenching ending, it pains the reader to attest to the knowledge that, the girl could have been saved, if only more help was at hand.
By more help meaning, the use of a fire extinguisher to put out the flames that had started eating away at the upturned car.
People are blaming the workers at the petrol kiosk who refused the good Samaritan's attempt to obtain a fire extinguisher, even after much pleading and bargaining. Thoughts and rallies of blame against that particular petrol COMPANY are even underway, or brewing within the minds of those enraged by this seemingly breach of... what? Ethics? Humanity? Law?
The heart of the argument seems to lie within the domains of JUDGMENT vs. OBLIGATION.
With judgment accounting for critical thinking and the way one would handle a stressful chaotic situation based on clear reasoning.
In defense of the petrol kiosk, I would like to point out some key points:
- The accident was around 500 metres away. None of the workers could have assessed the situation, and hence was unable to envision the extent of damage.
- Fearfulness and a sense of duty. They were ordered to not open the kiosk doors, for reasons including theft and safety, which brings us to the next point.
- FRAUD. Many people argue the rationale in turning down a MAN, rushing in at 3 IN THE MORNING, demanding that you OPEN the DOORS to your store, to aid in an ACCIDENT, you can't see there and then. I would most certainly have taken precaution, AGAINST THAT MAN.
- Workers. What type of attendant would you think, will man a petrol kiosk at 3 am? I'm certain he or she does not have a degree in chemical engineering. Heck, he or she may not even have an education at all, and may not even be a CITIZEN of Malaysia.
Which brings us back to JUDGMENT. Assessment of the situation, making a level-headed rational decision in a chaotic situation for the benefits of both parties, coming up with an amicable solution.
Would an immigrant worker be able to do that effectively? Would a petrol kiosk attendant manning the stall at 3 am have the CAPACITY, be it mentally or job-orientated, to do so?
*The tunnelhole of this argument is not somebody working at 3 am. It is ' What KIND of person would you expect to take the night-to-morning shift at a petrol kiosk?' and hence, their sense of duty and also, intelligence*
To sum it all up, this accident was an unfortunate incident with which its damage could have been significantly dissipated if GOOD JUDGMENT was available. However, to put it simply to avoid delving deep into the various facets of law and human rights, NO HUMAN IS OBLIGED TO HELP ANOTHER IN DISTRESS.
*With obligation meaning in this context, being bound by a set of rules or laws; to forbear something.*
Hence, we get something of a full picture, whereby the kiosk attendant had the right to refuse help, regardless of whether he/she had full knowledge of the accident. Plus, being non-obliged to offer any assistance, in lieu of safety and job *ignore the irony* obligations.
Nevertheless, in times of need and we call upon the humanity of others for help, the attendant has failed miserably (In his/her defense, the issue of misunderstanding could be brought upon). And on the basis of moral judgment, it is unfortunate that the attendant did not choose otherwise, which could have saved a life.
Obviously, I am commenting based on my third-party view within the confines of cold hard logic. However, on an emotional scale, I am unashamed to say that I DO feel a sense of INJUSTICE, RAGE, HELPLESSNESS and of course GRIEF, for the victim and her suffering.
This is my interpretation of this event, and I am not hardpressing my views on anybody, with no offense meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment