Subject:
|
Peanuts on Airplanes (was Re:Skin)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:33:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Frank Filz <FFILZ-LISTS@MINDSPRINGstopspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
651 times
|
| |
|
|
> I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the
> peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme
> amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The
> relativly light pain caused to others by substituting pretzels is
> smaller in comparison. I guess what I'm trying to say is the balance
> of good to evil is not directly proportional to the number of people.
> A well constructed government will take this into account.
So this is an interesting example, because the negative effects are pretty
well understood, and the costs of an alternative are pretty well understood.
Of course what may not be so understood is how many other substances can
cause fatal allergic reactions, and how many people are subject to each such
substance.
I also see this as a pretty easy rights case. You do not have an unlimited
right to travel on an airplane. For example, lets say your body somehow has
a trigger to explode if it is more than so many feet away from the center of
the earths core (ok, pretty wacky here...). Do you have the right to force
all airplanes to fly below that altitude, and thereby deny flights to Denver
because Denver is above that altitude? And for that matter, do we deny the
right of Denver to exist because some people would die if they lived at that
altitude?
I think we can all agree that the above "disability" does not justify
restricting how people may travel by air. So how are peanut allergies
different? I don't see any fundamental difference.
So, now I see the only rights issue is that the potential passenger has the
right to ask "Will you fly above this altitude?" or "Do you serve peanuts on
any of your flights?" He has the right to get a truthful answer from the
airline, which may include "We don't know." He then has the right to take
his business to an airline that can give him confidence that he will not be
subject to a fatal reaction. He also has the right to sue the airline for
damages should they answer incorrectly given his question (if his reaction
to peanuts is sufficiently severe, he might even want to ask "Do you do body
cavity searches on all your passengers to make sure they haven't brought
peanuts on board?" though I think we all know what the answer to that
question will be).
I note with thanks that we do not yet have a law banning peanuts from
airplanes. I also note that many (most?) airlines do not serve peanuts. This
looks to me like a case of the free market deciding that indeed the cost of
not providing peanuts is, well, peanuts, compared to the cost of the severe
allergic reactions to peanuts.
So how does this then apply to interactions overall? Honestly, I think the
best way to resolve all such issues is not to ban substances and activities,
but hold people responsible to:
1. Inquire as to the risks of exposure to harmful substances in the places
they go
2. Be held responsible for the harm caused by using harmful substances and
activities (and that responsibility may simply be "don't come to me when you
get sick because you ate a 'funny' brownie or went swimming in an abandoned
quarry")
3. Be truthful in responding to queries
If we did this, substances and activities that were more harmful than their
benefit would not be used. Things that potentially cause great harm, but
could also provide great benefit in certain situations would be used when
the circumstances justified it. And this simple rule covers everything from
choosing whether to wear a blue or grey suit to deciding whether an atomic
bomb should be dropped on a city.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The relativly light pain caused to others by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
