I appreciate the thoughtful response, Toby. The problem with judgment in this scenario is that it presumes complete knowledge of all the factors at play in that situation. There are a lot of scenarios that could account for what was seen. Perhaps that personâŚ
doesnât know how to swim and doesnât know the pond is shallow and of no risk.
once saw their sibling drown when they were a child and is frozen reliving the trauma of that incident.
is impairedâsight, hearing, developmentallyâŚâin a way where they cannot fully grasp the nature of the situation.
chose to call emergency services because they believed that was the best way they could intervene.
knows the boy has a painful and fatal condition and has chosen to end his life rather than continue to suffer. âŚ
Ultimately, what happened happened and we cannot change that. The question is, â How will we live together moving forward?â If we suspect someone is not minimizing harm in their actions, I believe we need to have a conversation with them focusing on the harm and suffering caused to us or others: âIâ and âtheyâ statements rather than âyou.â(If we are speaking for others, itâs very important that we are truly representing their experience.) Coming at someone from an accusatory, judgmental stance does not set a tone for a constructive, healthy ongoing relationship. In fact, many people will get defensive, dig in and even push back.
[Itâs worth noting there is another person in this story: the observer. Are they a trustworthy reporter? Do they have all the facts? Why did they also choose to only observe and not act?]
Youâve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just donât think the act/âommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We canât go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesnât take ownership, doesnât make amends⌠then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, Toby. The problem with judgment in this scenario is that it presumes complete knowledge of all the factors at play in that situation. There are a lot of scenarios that could account for what was seen. Perhaps that personâŚ
doesnât know how to swim and doesnât know the pond is shallow and of no risk.
once saw their sibling drown when they were a child and is frozen reliving the trauma of that incident.
is impairedâsight, hearing, developmentallyâŚâin a way where they cannot fully grasp the nature of the situation.
chose to call emergency services because they believed that was the best way they could intervene.
knows the boy has a painful and fatal condition and has chosen to end his life rather than continue to suffer.
âŚ
Ultimately, what happened happened and we cannot change that. The question is, â How will we live together moving forward?â If we suspect someone is not minimizing harm in their actions, I believe we need to have a conversation with them focusing on the harm and suffering caused to us or others: âIâ and âtheyâ statements rather than âyou.â(If we are speaking for others, itâs very important that we are truly representing their experience.) Coming at someone from an accusatory, judgmental stance does not set a tone for a constructive, healthy ongoing relationship. In fact, many people will get defensive, dig in and even push back.
[Itâs worth noting there is another person in this story: the observer. Are they a trustworthy reporter? Do they have all the facts? Why did they also choose to only observe and not act?]
Youâve pointed to a lot of potential complications, which I agree with, but I think they all also apply in cases where someone has done harm, not just in cases where they have not helped.
I just donât think the act/âommission distinction is very relevant here, and I thought the main claim of your post was that it was (but could have got the wrong end of the stick here!)
Maybe I overcomplexifyed things in my previous response. If they have caused harm, or appear to have, I think the next step is to make that known to them plainly, but in a nonjudgmental way. Then be open and curious to their response. We canât go through all the scenarios here, but if someone is defiant about it, doesnât take ownership, doesnât make amends⌠then we can exclude them from future participation in the community.
So yes, there is judgment taking place, but it is against the metric of harm and whether they are doing their best to minimize it.
Thanks again for engaging. This is helping me clarify my stance.