This is, in a sense, similar to a question like "What if you hit a parked car in the middle of the night?" What the right thing and what would people do?
Well, most people would flee the scene, but the right thing to do is take responsibility for your actions and offer to reimburse the parked car's owner. However I don't see it as a similar analogy.
Say you hit a parked car in the middle of the night, own up to it and tell the owner. But say you really smacked that car, totalling it. The owner (who loves his car and doesn't believe in junking cars,) then chooses to fix the car using your money (instead of replace it), costing thousands more than the undamaged value of the car. Then the owner says since he can't get to work without his car, you must pay him equal to his job's income during the time he needs to fix the car, costing you thousands more. Your alternatives can be anything from tellin' the guy to go eat a bag of hell, to quitting your career and your life to learn car mechanics and help fix that car yourself.
1) Decide to have nothing to do with the car and its fixing (or as little to do with the car as the law allows - pay for parts, nothing else.)
2) Be involved with the car, but in a bitter and pissed off way. Do the bare minimum and resent it, because the car screwed up your plans.
3) Be involved with the car, and really make a commitment to be an excellent mechanic. Don't complain about what is missed, don't whine about what the owner should have done.
Lee Stranahan wrote:
I think that's it broadly- don't be involved, be involved and pissy, or be involved and good. People in this dicussion keep acting like option 3 doesn't exist - I'm saying option 3 is the moral, rational thing to do.
I sometimes find that a change in perspective helps to clear up contradictions. The fallacies of argumentation that I have made are equivocation, non-sequitar, strawman, double-standard and trying to add validity to a long and nonsensical thread.