Like I'm confused or at least surprised because what I'm hearing seems to indicate there is zero possible mitigating context, if you're not there for any reason you're pure fucking evil, the height of bastardry And it just kind of... I don't understand the intensity, like at all
-
Show this thread
-
I mean the context of the post was—and we'll just go with text here, not subtext—somebody who saves lives for a living being on duty during a climate catastrophe with a friend who got the news their grandfather was on his death bed and staying so the other could be with him.
3 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
It you take that situation at face value (it does seem a little contrived) then the calculus being employed there seems a lot like reasoning I would use. Like, somebody dying is gone forever? Assuming they're important to you a death usually takes priority over a birth?
4 replies 1 retweet 28 likesShow this thread -
Like you notify your partner, you send someone to be there in your stead, you FaceTime or something if at all possible, but Death wins (and yeah a baby can be stillborn too but if that's likely to happen there will typically be some indication in advance)
6 replies 0 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Like if that is literally the ethical problem then DEONTOLOGICALLY SPEAKING that is the most prosocial choice to me. The exception being if somebody was expected to die in advance, because you have a social responsibility to say your goodbyes _before_ you have to save lives
2 replies 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Also like The responsible thing would be to discuss such a scenario in advance? If there's a nonzero chance you won't be on hand for a childbirth then you and your partner need to evaluate any contingencies for that not to be totally emotionally devastating IF it happens
4 replies 0 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Nymphomachy
The moral conflict is real, and you're not even wrong about the relative priorities. But he didn't *check* with her--he treated it as a minor sacrifice for himself, instead of a major one that was *hers* to make. And discussing hard tradeoffs under pressure is core to parenting!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @R_Emrys @Nymphomachy
So not being there is forgivable under some circumstances. Treating it like his decision alone, and like something where the primary relationship affected is the one between him and the baby, is an unforgivable lack of respect and caring.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @R_Emrys @Nymphomachy
Yeah this is my takeaway from reading the post It's not an issue of there always and forever being only one correct decision, it's that he treated this as a "me" decision rather than an "us" decision, like deciding whether to RSVP to a wedding
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
It's not actually his decision to make When you get someone else pregnant, they have a lien on you now They get a claim on your time and energy, they get to tell you what to do, even if you think the decision is bad
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
If she chooses to be "selfish" and demand she be more important than the friend with the dying grandfather or the possible victims of the bushfires that's her right That's what you promise when you make a wedding vow, that that person matters more than the rest of the world
-
-
Like as far as the bushfires go that's why he has a boss If someone has to make the utilitarian moral decision to force people to miss the birth of their child or the death of their grandpa to save lives, it's the boss' job, not your own job
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
His duty in that moment was to say "My friend has a dying grandpa but I have a wife in labor" and make the boss decide which one is more important Making the call himself is assuming the duties of a boss by abandoning the duties of a husband
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.