Drown the puppy
He's fallen in the water.
Professor Purple, already a little late for his lecture, is delayed further by his rescue of a dog which has fallen into the university lake and can't get out. His students forgive him when they learn why his arrival was delayed.
The week after, the dog has fallen into the lake again and again the professor's arrival is delayed. His students are now generally feeling less charitable towards the dog.
The week after, the stupid creature has done it again. Professor Purple merely informs a porter and gets on with his lecture. His students agree with his policy, and the dog drowns just in time to prevent a rescue.
The question is whether there's a flaw in the reasoning of the prof. and his class, or whether the dog's been unlucky.
My inclination is that there's a flaw in the reasoning, but pragmatics glosses over it. We've all been in situations where we attempt to help someone or something only to find that we've wasted our efforts. I spent all year doing that with Class 13. On the other hand, Professor Purple is merely a chance participant. What if Professor Orange, a known dog-hater, was on his way to class? The dog would've been dead on the first occasion and of no inconvenience to anyone.
Nonetheless, humans seem to have little time for anyone or anything that doesn't learn from past mistakes from which they've been rescued. In the example, there's also a matter of priorities. If the door to his office said "Professor Purple: Dog Rescuer", then the prof. would be employed to rescue dogs in difficulty. But if it says "Professor Purple: Ethics", then it's not part of his job to rescue dogs from lakes, even although he may feel it's the decent thing to do.
Actually, why didn't he phone the RSPCA and get them to take care of the dog which, it appears, is a stray? Or take it home? He's got options, but he's not using them.
Professor Purple, already a little late for his lecture, is delayed further by his rescue of a dog which has fallen into the university lake and can't get out. His students forgive him when they learn why his arrival was delayed.
The week after, the dog has fallen into the lake again and again the professor's arrival is delayed. His students are now generally feeling less charitable towards the dog.
The week after, the stupid creature has done it again. Professor Purple merely informs a porter and gets on with his lecture. His students agree with his policy, and the dog drowns just in time to prevent a rescue.
The question is whether there's a flaw in the reasoning of the prof. and his class, or whether the dog's been unlucky.
My inclination is that there's a flaw in the reasoning, but pragmatics glosses over it. We've all been in situations where we attempt to help someone or something only to find that we've wasted our efforts. I spent all year doing that with Class 13. On the other hand, Professor Purple is merely a chance participant. What if Professor Orange, a known dog-hater, was on his way to class? The dog would've been dead on the first occasion and of no inconvenience to anyone.
Nonetheless, humans seem to have little time for anyone or anything that doesn't learn from past mistakes from which they've been rescued. In the example, there's also a matter of priorities. If the door to his office said "Professor Purple: Dog Rescuer", then the prof. would be employed to rescue dogs in difficulty. But if it says "Professor Purple: Ethics", then it's not part of his job to rescue dogs from lakes, even although he may feel it's the decent thing to do.
Actually, why didn't he phone the RSPCA and get them to take care of the dog which, it appears, is a stray? Or take it home? He's got options, but he's not using them.
Comments