Try the snacks
They’ll leave you gasping.
A bargirl called Sam overhears a customer revealing to others that because he has HIV, he’s going to spread it about a bit. She knows that he’s allergic to peanuts and likes the free snacks. Sam thinks that if she puts some snacks into a dish which has been previously used for peanuts, the man might suffer an allergic reaction and thus be prevented from going through with his diabolical plan.
It might be rough justice, but surely it would be justice.
Is Sam doing the right thing? I could go round apprehending criminals, which would seem to benefit society, but I’m not a policeman and would be arrested for impersonating one. Although my intentions might be good, chaos would result if people went round arresting each other because sooner rather than later the entire process would shift from arresting people because they’ve done something criminal to arresting them because they might do something criminal. The justice system would collapse under the weight of public stupidity.
When I was young, I must’ve reached a stage at which I’d think about the potential consequences of an action and follow what I thought was the chain of cause and effect. If the result was that my transgression would be detected and I’d come to a sticky end, the plan would be abandoned. It’s a practice I should perhaps revive.
Anyway, enough about me, and more about Sam. What if the man died as a consequence of his snacks being contaminated by peanut oil? If he survives, he’ll only be out of action for a finite period of time. If she doesn’t take the law into her hands, how might she stop this guy? Tell the police? She’d need evidence, and even if some of the people at the bar corroborated her story, the police probably couldn’t do much beyond having a quiet word to the man. She could try to reason with the guy, but if he’s the bastard he seems to be, he’s just going to laugh in her face. No, apparently, he’s not bluffing, but we don’t know whether he really will go through with his threat.
The book only has a little to say about the scenario and has no optimal conclusion to offer.
It might be rough justice, but surely it would be justice.
Is Sam doing the right thing? I could go round apprehending criminals, which would seem to benefit society, but I’m not a policeman and would be arrested for impersonating one. Although my intentions might be good, chaos would result if people went round arresting each other because sooner rather than later the entire process would shift from arresting people because they’ve done something criminal to arresting them because they might do something criminal. The justice system would collapse under the weight of public stupidity.
When I was young, I must’ve reached a stage at which I’d think about the potential consequences of an action and follow what I thought was the chain of cause and effect. If the result was that my transgression would be detected and I’d come to a sticky end, the plan would be abandoned. It’s a practice I should perhaps revive.
Anyway, enough about me, and more about Sam. What if the man died as a consequence of his snacks being contaminated by peanut oil? If he survives, he’ll only be out of action for a finite period of time. If she doesn’t take the law into her hands, how might she stop this guy? Tell the police? She’d need evidence, and even if some of the people at the bar corroborated her story, the police probably couldn’t do much beyond having a quiet word to the man. She could try to reason with the guy, but if he’s the bastard he seems to be, he’s just going to laugh in her face. No, apparently, he’s not bluffing, but we don’t know whether he really will go through with his threat.
The book only has a little to say about the scenario and has no optimal conclusion to offer.
Tomorrow’s dilemma, fighting fire with fire.
Comments