Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTA
Do you believe he (or anyone else) didn't have a moral obligation? If you read the yahoo story that I linked earlier, the moral part might be the least of their worries.
|
Reason why its debatable is simply because at the time he could have felt that his morals were correct with sending the information he recieved up the chain and believing they would work it out. Does that make him morally wrong?!? and without having hindsight you can't answer that question.
What about all the people that had information on terrorist and reported to who they were suppose to and the people that handle the information found nothing to go on and dropped the ball on it, are the people that had the information morally wrong or to blame for an attack that occured and they didn't personally stop it or raise a bigger fuss because the people that handle those situations didn't take the information seriously. Really think about what you are saying and apply it to a similar situation and take the emotion out of it simplying because its child abuse.
Point is some things can't be controlled and you can't say someone is morally wrong because you don't agree with how they handled something. And you can't place a higher blame on one or another person simply because you feel like it, esp when they didn't do anything wrong. He didn't touch these kids, so why is he getting heat as if he did. And don't give me the same tired line he didn't stop it and he could have because YOU DON'T know that. No one stopped it so if you want to place blame it should all be equal.