Search the Community

I'm sitting here listening to FDR2681, and kindof surprised at the conversation. Ok, perhaps this post is a bit of a stretch in terms of practicality, but I actually appreciated the caller's quandry to a degree, and like him am interested in Stef's analysis of the hypothetical example. The point of it is to get at the heart of the moral issue, not to create a silly hypothetical merely for the sake of it. These scenarios call us to question the limits or boundaries of the NAP, and that is important. I have added a few more elements to make the scenario even more interesting than was discussed in the podcast. To paraphrase, Stef's perspective of the essence of morality in this example lies within the complaint, and cited rape vs. rough sex as an example. But that analogy doesn't seem to corelate well to the moral questions contained here, now does it? What I added to the scenario below is done to dilute the moral outrage, such that it becomes less black or white, right or wrong. In today's society people would cry to the government, "there out to be a law against that". Really? Aren't there numerous scenarios where people are "at risk" and without insurance to protect them from that risk? What about unknown risks, like meteors the size of a car falling out of te sky into your house, or space junk? Or throat cancer? Just what is the risk to the community in the examples below, and does that really matter if a nosy neighbor complains? Could Bob sue the nosey neighbor for slander or defamation if his reputation is harmed but Bob's activities are proven to be totally safe? One could imagine many ways Bob's bombs could be safe, such as no explosive materials in his home (they're added to his bombs elsewhere before detonation for example). 1) The basement bomb maker, let's call him Bob, is discovered one day to have been making bombs in his basement for lets say 10 years (arbitrary but lengthly timeframe), during which time no issues or problems have occured. 2) This was discovered quite by accident when a neighbor noticed a bright reflection of the sun coming in his window from a rather odd shiny thing glistening in Bob's driveway. When the neighbor brought this to Bob's attention Bob explained it was for his latest project, and it must have fell out of the box he took from his car. The neighbor, not being satisfied with that explanation started watching Bob and eventually saw him through an open window working on something the neighbor was uncomfortable with. 2) Bob is a long time employee of Acme Explosives, a demolition company for quaries and structure disposal. Acme and several other former employers have recognized Bob for his "extreme" safety conciousness and have awarded him many plaques and other honors for his expertise. 3) Bob is passionate about his craft and has no malice or destructive intentions towards anybody. It is his hobby to build these devices and claims they're perfectly safe. He points to the many uses of his bombs to remove obsolete buildings which are in and of theselves a safety hazard and for reducing the time required to escavate the massive amount of earth for the nearby river dam project that brought electricity to 1000s of homes. 4) Bob would like to continue his experimentation and development of explosive devices and is willing to have a panel of explosive experts evaluate his basement "lab" for safety with the goal being to become certified as being safe for his residential setting. 5) Bob's experience gives him great confidence he will obtain the "safe" certification. But if not Bob will cease all work on his "hobby" devices until he can relocate to a place where there are no concerns for his activities. 6) Bob claims his bombs are no more risky to his neighbors than the sportsman down the street who reloads all his own ammunition. In fact he claims it's much safer. Now who is in favor of letting Bob play with his bombs? Would your decision be influenced if you knew Bob kept no explosive chemicals in his home, except for perhaps minor ones like primer caps or similar very low power, non-lethal detonators? ----- Perhaps another man is a collector of world war 2 biological weapons, claiming he is keeping them out of the dangerous hands of terrorists and politicians. Similar to the story of Bob above, a large underground storage bunker is discovered with these weapons and it has been under this man's control for a very long time. The man is well respected in his community and the discovery divides the community as to this man's motives and intentions for accumulating the weapons. Where would you stand on these issues? Isn't is similar to your stand on living near the San Andreous fault or Yellowstone? Or what about on the hurricane risk of the Atlantic coast or Gulf of Mexico? What about unknown risks? Do you know what dangerous industries are close to you? What about dangerous cargo on a nearby highway?