The incidents at Penn State give rise to a question about personal responsibility. Paterno got fired not for breaking the law, but for a moral perception that he should have done more. How long will it be until someone proposes a law that requires all citizens to report potential legal violations and hold them accountable for not doing so?
For example, you have a pothead neighbor that lives next door. You can smell the pot constantly. He gets high, goes out for a drive and kills a child riding a bike. Since
you were aware of his constant law breaking shouldn’t you be held accountable for not doing anything?
Same with alcohol. You and your buds have a couple of beers during a game. You get into a car with him and your bud causes a serious accident. He fails a breathalyzer. Shouldn’t
you be charged as an accessory? Or are you going to cop out and say he didn’t seem drunk…how was I to know?
Your brother is a meth head. He is always high. Do you turn him in or allow him to continue his illegal lifestyle?
Is having a law that requires all citizens must do “X” a good thing? Or should it be limited and applied for specific horrible things like pedophilia, rape murder…?
I’m curious as to where you see your moral duty end and your legal duty begin.
Being fired from your job due to a moral lapse would be different from being arrested due to a moral lapse.
Paterno was fired for not reporting Sandusky and violating whatever code of ethics/morals the Board of Trustees of Penn State has. The Board has the right to do that under the University’s charter, I would assume.
You’re describing an ethical standard versus a legal standard.
I agree totally. But what about those gray lines? Say you know someone always drinks too much after a softball game and then gets into his 3 ton truck to drive home. Don’t you have a responsibility to call the cops and report him before he kills or injures someone?
I’m curious as to where you see your moral duty end and your legal duty begin.
I see a significant difference between the cases you state and the Paterno incident. The Paterno incident would be more like, "A kid comes up from my basement and says “Hey John brought a bottle of liquor over and the other kids are drinking it”. I then do nothing except call my wife’s cell phone and leave a message. The kid THEN goes out and drives and get’s into an accident. Should I be held accountable? Yes in almost every case.
Paterno was in charge of everything going on in his program and in his facilities. If someone was assaulting someone else in his facilities he should have reported it and or stopped it, not just “Pass it on”.
Legal duty begins where your property or responsibility for property begins. Moral duty doesn’t end.
Paterno didn’t observe the crime, although he had knowledge of it and willfully chose not to inform the proper authorities (that responsibility ultimately lied on the person who witnessed the crime). I’d call that negligence and grounds for firing. It was moreso his responsibility as a representative of Penn State to report it than it was a legal obligation to. I’m not defending Sandusky by any means (what he did was horrible), but Paterno had an obligation to his and Sandusky’s employer first of all (The Board of Trustees AND the President) once he became knowledgeable of what Sandusky was doing.
We’re already on that path. There are lots of situations that invoke mandatory reporting of suspected illegal activity and the line is constantly creeping. This event may be the catalyst for even more legislation in that direction.
Paterno was fired because he has become a liability to the university. What he did or did not do is not relevant. It is how the public and media react to him and his association with the program that matters.
If the recent rumors about large donors is actually true, then they may be trying very hard to shut down the public focus as quickly as possible to protect much bigger fish.
Say you know someone always drinks too much after a softball game and then gets into his 3 ton truck to drive home. Don’t you have a responsibility to call the cops and report him before he kills or injures someone?
You most definitely should call the cops or at least stop the person from driving. Currently, there’s no legal obligation to though. Once it becomes law, all fun will die.
Paterno was fired because he has become a liability to the university. What he did or did not do is not relevant. It is how the public and media react to him and his association with the program that matters.
.
This is the real driver behind it. People are fired every day from their job because they don’t dress apporopriately via the company’s dress code and adhear their desired corporate image.
The fact that they are firing people becuase of their involvement in child-rape cover-up to protect their coprate image is an easy leap. :+)
I’m curious as to where you see your moral duty end and your legal duty begin.
I think most of these lines are drawn between action and inaction. Moral duty tending to condemn for inaction and legal duty tending to impose liability for action.
In your drunk driving example, a bar owner who serves someone too much alcohol and then lets them drive home is far more likely to be held liable for any mishap than the teetotalling patron on the barstool next to the drunk who does not call the cops as the drunk leaves the bar to get in his car.
In this case, if Joe Pa is to be held legally liable to the victims, it will likely be because he allowed (acted) Sandusky to use Penn State facilities. His inaction (not reporting to police) likely will not be enough to hold him legally culpable yet that inaction certainly has led to moral culpability.
I have used the general lack of any legal duty to rescue to make a similar point. If you are in a park and see a person drowning in the lake, you have no legal duty rescue that person and would likely suffer no civil liability for your inaction. Yet we would all likely condemn you for your inaction.
If you are in a park and see a person drowning in the lake, you have no legal duty rescue that person and would likely suffer no civil liability for your inaction. Yet we would all likely condemn you for your inaction.
Not a rebuttal to this statement (although we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn without all the facts), but I always think of this guy when anyone mentions rescuing someone from a lake:
Joe Alton Delaney was an American football running back who played two seasons in the National Football League (NFL). In his two seasons with the Chiefs, Delaney set four franchise records that would stand for over 20 years.
He was a two-time All-American athlete for the Northwestern State Demons football team, as well as a track and field star. Delaney played two seasons with the Kansas City Chiefs, and was chosen as the AFC Rookie of the Year in 1981 by United Press International. Delaney died on June 29, 1983 while attempting to rescue three children from drowning in a lake
Not a rebuttal to this statement (although we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn without all the facts), but I always think of this guy when anyone mentions rescuing someone from a lake:
Water rescues are very dangerous. I have always taught that it is better that one drown than two. I suppose that goes for any other type of rescue as well. I don’t know the specifics of this hero’s attempt but there is almost always something you can use to assist in a rescue that will reduce your own risk. It is a shame he died.
I just read his story. Remarkable and all too familiar. Heros don’t often think about the danger or the risk. They see a need to act and do.
Paterno didn’t observe the crime, although he had knowledge of it and willfully chose not to inform the proper authorities (that responsibility ultimately lied on the person who witnessed the crime). I’d call that negligence and grounds for firing. It was moreso his responsibility as a representative of Penn State to report it than it was a legal obligation to. I’m not defending Sandusky by any means (what he did was horrible), but Paterno had an obligation to his and Sandusky’s employer first of all (The Board of Trustees AND the President) once he became knowledgeable of what Sandusky was doing.
He actually reported to the VP in charge of the Police Department which would have jurisdiction. So he did report it to an appropriate authority and so far the State DA is not questioning that… The AD and VP dropped the ball by not persuing it.
It’s hard to believe that someone would retain on one’s staff an individual reported to have been witnessed engaging in that kind of activity. What kind of conversation occurred between Paterno and Sandusky after Paterno was told of the shower incident, I have to wonder.
We’re already on that path. There are lots of situations that invoke mandatory reporting of suspected illegal activity and the line is constantly creeping. This event may be the catalyst for even more legislation in that direction.
Paterno was fired because he has become a liability to the university. What he did or did not do is not relevant. It is how the public and media react to him and his association with the program that matters.
If the recent rumors about large donors is actually true, then they may be trying very hard to shut down the public focus as quickly as possible to protect much bigger fish.
I was a certified lifeguard back in school… Lesson # 1 in lifeguard training was always to consider your own safety before attempting any rescue! If you’re overcome for whatever reason, then you’re no longer any good to the original rescuee(s) and the likelihood increases that it will become a double (or whatever n+1) drowning.
Being fired from your job due to a moral lapse would be different from being arrested due to a moral lapse.
Paterno was fired for not reporting Sandusky and violating whatever code of ethics/morals the Board of Trustees of Penn State has. The Board has the right to do that under the University’s charter, I would assume.
You’re describing an ethical standard versus a legal standard.
Exactly, what I can/can’t be charged with by the authorities is a very different set of rules (much narrower) than what my employer can decide is no longer worth what they’re paying me to do.
