NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/abortion/28188

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-20 | 4.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!jk
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Jim Kalb is NOT crazy, just confused?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Jul 92 22:47:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Lines: 69

[e-mail] (Wayne Smith) writes:

[I had written:]

>>The chance of breaking something from a single act of picking up a dish
>>in a china shop is considerably less than 1/100.  Nonetheless, it
>>doesn't seem (to me, at any rate) as a violation of the customer's right
>>to be left alone to stick him with the responsibility of paying for the
>>dish if it does break.  The reason is that china breaking is the kind of
>>thing that tends to happen when people pick up china, so it's forseeable
>>and the actor is held responsible.

>The main purpose of picking up china is to see if it is worthy of
>purchase, or to aid in identification.  You make it sound as if the
>purpose was to break it by way of handling.  Because it is an object
>which someone else owns, then you are responsible for it while in your
>care.  It is not because dammage is a possible consequence that the
>viewer is held responsible...

My point was that even though the purpose is just as you say, if it
breaks the customer is held responsible.  Intent to break is not
required and I am sorry if it sounded like that was what I thought -- I
meant the opposite.  However, it does seems to me that the breakage must
be the (at least somewhat) forseeable result of the customer's act for
the customer to be held responsible.  For example, if the customer
picked up a dish and while he was holding it a bullet fired by someone
who was robbing the shop broke it, the stick-up man and not the customer
would be held responsible even though the dish was in the customer's
care at the time and would not have been broken if the customer had not
moved it from where it was.

>Indeed, as was pointed out above, pregnancy from sex is statisticly
>(sp?) unlikely.  From an unbiased point of view, only the most likely
>outcome of an action or event should hold the title of the forseeable
>consequence of that event.  So in the case of sex, the forseeable
>consequence is pleasure (or a headache, or an argument, or sleep... :)
>)

I don't think that's right -- it's recognized in law and in common moral
judgment that an action can have several forseeable consequences, and in
a proper case people can be held responsible for even rather unlikely
consequences.  For example, if someone gives me a rifle for Christmas
and I try it out by shooting it at passing cars, I'm guilty of homicide
if I kill someone even if (because I'm such a bad shot) by far the most
likely outcome was a series of misses.  For that matter, a father is
responsible for the support of his offspring, even if it was a one-night
stand and he didn't intend to become a father.

>I can have the best driving record in the world, and have adequate
>insurance, etc...  But by your argument, a 'forseeable consequence' of
>driving is killing a pedestrian or another driver. This is a very
>important 'result'. If someone is killed, and if the cause was poor
>road conditions, or poor visibility, etc, then am I liable for a charge
>of murder or man slaughter?  No, because an outside agency taxed my
>abilities in that circumstance and my resulting skill was insufficient
>to prevent the accident. Now apply this last sentance to the act of
>sex...

I don't think that's right.  Under the circumstances you describe
driving is a rather safe activity, so a person who is as careful as you
suggest is unlikely ever to kill anyone.  In contrast, we in t.a. have
recently been advised by a pro-choicer that in a lifetime of sexual
activity an unwanted pregnancy is quite likely even if contraception is
used.  So it makes sense to say that in the first case death is not
forseeable, while in the second case pregnancy is.  Of course, if a
driver was not so careful death would become forseeable, but in that
event he could be held responsible as negligent.
--
    Jim Kalb ([e-mail])