Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
IncantatioN said:Speaking of morality and the occupation concerned with it, what about officers/ troops in the army who have to kill innocent people for a few bad guys or have to pull out of an ambush where they have bad guys pinned down because they were ordered to/ not to. We all know what happens to people in the army who disobey the order (A Few Good Men).
Well, it's obviously much different when aggressive firemen disregard procedure and orders, but then there's rogue firefighters to worry about (Backdraft)! Just kidding, I wouldn't put too much stock or effort into examples from movies, but in any case, I don't think killing people compares well to putting out fires. "Oh my God, you put out the wrong fire, it was one of ours, what are we going to tell its family?"
IncantatioN said:I also know that it's wrong that the firemen didn't stop the fire when it was in front of them, but it's never that easy now is it. If you're a small player in the big scheme of things and we're talking about what a higher up's call is or whether your actions would embarrass the fire department, etc. and of course the thought of losing your job that supports a family, things can go sticky. The system is flawed no doubt.
I think everyone understands the bureaucratic consequences in play, but they're extreme and unlikely in this academic scenario, and weighed against the immediate consequences of a fire burning down one's home right in front of you, what do you really think is the prudent thing to do? If you do nothing, the home will definitely burn, and you may or may not get in trouble later. If you put out the fire, you could save the home, and you may or may not get in trouble later. Not a tough a choice, and maybe not a choice at all since you could argue either which would more likely get you fired. Scapegoating goes both ways, and an order can suddenly be misunderstood after the fact. What's more likely to get you fired anyway, an internal departmental issue among colleagues, or something on the front page of the paper where politicians at all levels start getting involved? From a purely selfish standpoint, I'd take my chances with the high ground of doing the right thing and putting out the fire instead of being that asshole whose head roles anyway for trying to cover their ass.
IncantatioN said:Speaking of 'what ifs', what if a morally right fireman did go all gung-ho to stop the fire and died, would the department refrain from giving his family monetary compensation from the state because he violated a direct order? I think they would.
Apparently someone going in and dying wasn't even a possibility, and even if that were the case, it's another example of where common sense and human intervention should correct a flawed bureaucratic apparatus. When everyone just shrugs their shoulders in situations like this, mankind devolves just a little bit, that's why it's nice to hear that reaction from firefighters. Speaking of what if scenarios, what if a fireman put the fire out and nobody gave a shit, particularly those in the business of fighting fires. Occam's razor likes that one.
Anyway, the mistake here isn't about the technicalities and possible consequences, but the probabilities and overemphasis on the worst case scenario; if every decision hinged upon that standard, nobody could rightfully do anything, or conversely, one could use that rationalization to justify anything, from watching houses burn down to war crimes.