Old Geezer Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 There are laws requiring caregivers for the elderly and for children to report abuse if it is in any way suspected. While it is clearly morally acceptable to be pro-active in such a situation, is it appropriate for the government to mandate active participation by employees? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 In general, your question is: Are reporting crimes and testifying in court moral obligations, and if so does that fact justify government in mandating that obligation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_S Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 The governments sole, singular purpose should ideally be to simply protect the interests of the individuals from those who would violate them by means of physical force. I'm pretty sure it is in the interests of these people to not be abused physically and this abuse would to some extent impede upon their abilty to live freely. So this law pretty much falls under that domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Y- I think that Is what I am asking, I cant quite be sure... I guess I am also curious about the nature of the caregiver contract and whether there are implicit obligations with all such contracts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_S Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Are these government employed caregivers? Ideally there would be no such thing. That void would have to be filled either by volunteering or a private industry that catered to these needs. The government is not a support mechanism for its citizens personal ailings. But I guess thats a bit off-topic and negates from the reality of the premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 The governments sole, singular purpose should ideally be to simply protect the interests of the individuals from those who would violate them by means of physical force. I'm pretty sure it is in the interests of these people to not be abused physically and this abuse would to some extent impede upon their abilty to live freely. So this law pretty much falls under that domain. yes, but the agent you did not mention is that of the caregiver. unlike testifying in court, the government has added a specific dimension to the nature of the job. (For instance if I run a private day care center, I must train all employees on their duty to report SUSPICIOUS behavior) In this regard, the government has structured what I may pay my employees to do. This is beyond the scope of normal government intervention and expectations, because otherwise Mandatory reporting laws would not be legally necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
always_learning Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 I think the reason Old Geezer brought up this topic is because it is a lot more interesting than just the typical question of ”Are reporting crimes and testifying in court moral obligations, and if so does that fact justify government in mandating that obligation?”. This particular scenario includes a child who is not capable of making his/her own decisions and the parents, who willingly brought the child into life, are morally responsible for the well being of that child. So the real question is as the decision maker on the behalf of a life should you be required by law to tell authorities about any crimes committed against that individual? My answer to that is NO. Should you be required by law to tell the cops when you, personally, got assaulted by someone? It is up to the individual what the best course of action should be. I can think of plenty examples why I might be in the best interest of the attacked to remain silent. About the caregivers of the elderly, I’m not really sure as to legal roll of the caregiver. Are they the legal guardian, or just some one who works for that individual? Either way the answer is no. Edit: I see that you are talking about hired help and not of legal guardians, opps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_S Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 You've raised some relevant issues concerning my responce that I've overlooked. Ultimately the government should not demand anything of its people other then the abolishmnet of brute force. The behavior of its citizens should be governed by sound philosophical judgment and an economic system that rewards and honors it, rather then being mandated by the state. Having said that I would have to agree: No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 I am not sure the question has resolved itself to my satisfaction. If the government is unable to dictate the nature of the contract to ensure that it is able to ensure individual rights, as in the case of the elderly or any child to young to articulate abuses. (for instance in cases where they are volitional and rational but not able to communicate without assistance or in some cases not at all) does this mean that the government has access privelages? how does this compare to "Air Marshalls"??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 If you witness a crime, or otherwise become aware of evidence that a crime has been committed, and withhold any evidence from the agencies whose task it is to carry out criminal justice, you are in effect an accessory to the crime. Your (lack of) action upholds the initiation of force against the victim, and you are thus a party to the violation of their rights. Of course, that assumes (as Joerj11 suggested above) that the victim chooses to press charges. But in the case of children, they are not yet able to exercise their legal rights on their own--that is the responsibility of their legal guardian(s) (usually their parents). But what if it is their guardian is the violator of their rights? I would say that it is at least a moral obligation of other concerned adults to report whatever evidence they have that abuse is taking place to the appropriate authorities, and a strong case could probably be made that it should be a legal obligation as well. But I think that is a question for the field of law, not philosophy--and I am by no means a lawyer, so I'll restrict myself from any further comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.