How this ended up on MTS, I don't know.

[conuly]

O NOES! ITS STUPID! SHE SAVED LIVES!

Here's the thing. Unless her school has a rule that states "discipline for breaking school rules shall be suspended (no pun) if, while breaking the rules, the student does something moderately heroic" the fact is they really have no choice but to punish her for skipping school.

Because she was, in fact, skipping school.

Unless her school is set up very oddly, I imagine that the only way to go home before the end of the day is to go to the office and tell them you're sick, and then wait for a parent to either pick you up or tell them to send you home. And she didn't do that. Which means she was skipping school and, yeah, breaking the rules.

And she says she was sick, but I said that all the time. And half the time I just either came home anyway or else never left home to begin with. I didn't "skip school to come home", I did it so I wouldn't have to go to school. I had no real desire to do anything, so I defaulted to going home and watching TV, or reading, or playing video games. (This all assumes she really did intend to go home, of course - she may have meant to just stop at home and pick something up before going out again, or to take the bus near to home and then do something else. Or maybe she was really sick, I don't know.)

"But she did something heroic!"

Yeah, through coincidence. And despite what everybody over there is claiming, she didn't really "choose" to be a hero. She kinda had that choice thrust upon her, as the other choice was "sit here and get seriously injured or killed, along with the driver and all the little kids". Not much of a choice.

"But don't they cancel out????"

No, they don't. They're two unrelated things. "Sure, he robbed a bank - but he gave some of the money to charity!" It doesn't really work that way, or at least, it shouldn't.

Okay, if she'd skipped school for the specific purpose of committing the heroic deed... maybe. "Yeah, he robbed a bank - but he only did it because it was the only way he'd be able to ransom his wife from the nefarious evildoers, and all the rest of the money went to the poor!"

Or if you said the policy was wrong, that the punishment was too much for the crime, okay. But I really fail to see how a day of Saturday detention is really that arduous. I mean, it might be, but... really? It's probably not.

Comments

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

If she really got sick on the way to school and was returning home, where she would have called in sick, they're in the wrong, regardless of whatever else happened. If this was one of my boys, I'd be furious.

[conuly]

Agreed. If she really got sick and really was following protocol - sure.

And I'm not entirely sold on the detention for skipping school idea anyway, but that's unrelated.

[peaceofpie.livejournal.com]

I am generally not in favor of kids getting punished for school-related behavior unless they're actually hurting someone else. But if I were, I would be in agreement with you. I had to read it a few times to realize why it was that I was still disagreeing about her being punished for this, and then I realized it's because I just don't think kids should get punished for skipping school, not because of any disagreement with the points you've made.

[conuly]

Yeah - I don't think that skipping school actually does merit that punishment to begin with either.

But the school apparently does, so.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It's a matter of the severity of her infraction vs. the value of the good deed she did. Skipping school is a rather minor infraction, unless she has a pattern of doing it. You compare it to robbing a bank, but the analogy doesn't work IMO because robbing a bank is a serious violent felony. Skipping school is a nonviolent victimless breach in protocol. They could have let this one go without any risk of demolishing people's respect for the law.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I should add that i see this as a case for exploring the distinction between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The deontological approach worries me because of how easily it devolves into moral absolutism, and how well it supports authoritarianism. In contrast the consequentialist approach lets us consider a situation from numerous different ethical perspectives at once - there is less risk of becoming slaves to the rules.

[conuly]

But the problem with that argument is that if she'd been on a totally uneventful bus ride, she would have gotten the detention. That's not fair.

[siderea]

Fairness and justice are more often opposed than is widely realized.

If the application of punishment for skipping school is discretionary -- as it may well be -- dispensing with it in this case as an explicit reward for her heroism might be the wiser choice.

[conuly]

I can see that argument, if you say it sensibly like now. I guess I just got my dander up a lot because the mirror argument (not doing so is stupid) is so... not right.

[siderea]

I can see it both ways, too. Another potential solution is that she is both punished and rewarded, though that's tricky to handle successfully.

We don't know a lot of circumstances which I expect go into this sort of decision, like, is this the first offense or has she had a lengthy problem with skipping class? How plausible is her excuse for not calling in sick? How sick was she? How rigid is the school being and how rigid are they supposed to be (and according to whom)?

[conuly]

All right, all right, I'm convinced now :)

To be totally honest, I was more upset over the fact that it was in mock-the-stupid than baffled that my opinion wasn't the only one. Because I don't think this is really, y'know, a mockworthy story.

[siderea]

No, they don't. They're two unrelated things. "Sure, he robbed a bank - but he gave some of the money to charity!" It doesn't really work that way, or at least, it shouldn't.

Actually, bringing in character witnesses to attest to the worth of the defendant in the hopes of mitigating the sentence is a standard part of American juriprudence. "Yes, your honor, he robbed a bank; but he's really a good kid who screwed up once."

[conuly]

Okay, yeah, but what if it's "He tripped and fell and some money landed in the poorbox" and giving to charity wasn't much of a choice?

I guess in part I don't see her actions as overly heroic. I mean, I'm glad she was able to keep people from getting hurt, and it is very fortuitous that she was on that bus - but I really wonder what else she's expected to have done instead, especially as her life was as much at risk as anybody else's. I know some people freeze up, but I don't think that not freezing up is much of a choice either. If you don't, the correct action is so obvious, you can't help but take it.

[siderea]

I guess in part I don't see her actions as overly heroic. [...]

Yet either of us could envision a scenario in which a person might have more or less discretion in action. Say, if she had had to run into a burning building or run across the tracks of an on-coming train.

One of the purposes of such rewards is not to condition the actor, but the observers. In rewarding her, the community says, "We prize those who avert disaster," not merely to her, but to the whole community. This is one way how community values are propagated: by making positive examples of them.

So the question is, "What message do we wish to send to others?" It is reasonable to think, "Others may have more discretion in their action; we want to encourage them to the act for the good of others; we shall send a strong message that acts which save others' lives are meritorious."

[conuly]

Well, I'm not firmly convinced, but I'm definitely seeing that view now.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I don't think the correct message should be: if you do something wrong, maybe you'll get lucky and have some freaky accident occur near you where you can be a hero and then everyone will forgive you and not notice you were wrong in the first place.

I think that's a crap message.

I prefer the message of: if you do something wrong, it's wrong. And if you do something great, it's great. And you will get the effects of ~both~. So, she should be punished and rewarded, each according to the things she did.

Of course, it's all rather weird for me, because discipline didn't work that way when I grew up. For example, getting punished by the school for lateness worked like this: the rule was be late 3 times and you get a detention. The practice was be late often enough as a really, really good student who is late because she is simply too tired to always get to school on time and they will not write down many of the latenesses, but will write down a small percentage of them, so eventually you will acquire a detention.

Absences worked similarly, except that the number they would record had a cap, so they'd record roughly that number divided by 4 each quarter so that I didn't have too many to be hit by the mandatory held back a grade laws. But then, I was missing more than 20% of my school days in high school and late for many of the others. All of the other solutions would have been difficult.

So, the idea of a school fairly enforcing its rules equally... I find it unlikely. Of course, an argument can be made that getting around bad rules isn't a bad thing.

Also, I got one detention in middle school (totally not my fault, although I was late, but it had to do with my family having moved) and one in high school. Both were very pleasant. In Middle School detention meant that instead of waiting standing up outside (or just barely in the corridor inside if the weather was bad) after my father dropped me off to school way too early on his way to work (because it was the only way he could give me a ride) I instead had to sit down in a classroom inside for the same period of time. A friend of mine who was also stuck going to school early on a regular basis asked if she could have detention too, but they said no, so she had to stand outside in the corridor while I sat at a desk.

My main point - it's all rather silly and nonsensical anyway. And I like to ramble.

[ser-kai.livejournal.com]

If she really got sick on the way to school and was returning home, where she would have called in sick, they're in the wrong, regardless of whatever else happened. If this was one of my boys, I'd be furious.

[conuly]

Agreed. If she really got sick and really was following protocol - sure.

And I'm not entirely sold on the detention for skipping school idea anyway, but that's unrelated.

[peaceofpie.livejournal.com]

I am generally not in favor of kids getting punished for school-related behavior unless they're actually hurting someone else. But if I were, I would be in agreement with you. I had to read it a few times to realize why it was that I was still disagreeing about her being punished for this, and then I realized it's because I just don't think kids should get punished for skipping school, not because of any disagreement with the points you've made.

[conuly]

Yeah - I don't think that skipping school actually does merit that punishment to begin with either.

But the school apparently does, so.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It's a matter of the severity of her infraction vs. the value of the good deed she did. Skipping school is a rather minor infraction, unless she has a pattern of doing it. You compare it to robbing a bank, but the analogy doesn't work IMO because robbing a bank is a serious violent felony. Skipping school is a nonviolent victimless breach in protocol. They could have let this one go without any risk of demolishing people's respect for the law.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I should add that i see this as a case for exploring the distinction between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The deontological approach worries me because of how easily it devolves into moral absolutism, and how well it supports authoritarianism. In contrast the consequentialist approach lets us consider a situation from numerous different ethical perspectives at once - there is less risk of becoming slaves to the rules.

[conuly]

But the problem with that argument is that if she'd been on a totally uneventful bus ride, she would have gotten the detention. That's not fair.

[siderea]

Fairness and justice are more often opposed than is widely realized.

If the application of punishment for skipping school is discretionary -- as it may well be -- dispensing with it in this case as an explicit reward for her heroism might be the wiser choice.

[conuly]

I can see that argument, if you say it sensibly like now. I guess I just got my dander up a lot because the mirror argument (not doing so is stupid) is so... not right.

[siderea]

I can see it both ways, too. Another potential solution is that she is both punished and rewarded, though that's tricky to handle successfully.

We don't know a lot of circumstances which I expect go into this sort of decision, like, is this the first offense or has she had a lengthy problem with skipping class? How plausible is her excuse for not calling in sick? How sick was she? How rigid is the school being and how rigid are they supposed to be (and according to whom)?

[conuly]

All right, all right, I'm convinced now :)

To be totally honest, I was more upset over the fact that it was in mock-the-stupid than baffled that my opinion wasn't the only one. Because I don't think this is really, y'know, a mockworthy story.

[siderea]

No, they don't. They're two unrelated things. "Sure, he robbed a bank - but he gave some of the money to charity!" It doesn't really work that way, or at least, it shouldn't.

Actually, bringing in character witnesses to attest to the worth of the defendant in the hopes of mitigating the sentence is a standard part of American juriprudence. "Yes, your honor, he robbed a bank; but he's really a good kid who screwed up once."

[conuly]

Okay, yeah, but what if it's "He tripped and fell and some money landed in the poorbox" and giving to charity wasn't much of a choice?

I guess in part I don't see her actions as overly heroic. I mean, I'm glad she was able to keep people from getting hurt, and it is very fortuitous that she was on that bus - but I really wonder what else she's expected to have done instead, especially as her life was as much at risk as anybody else's. I know some people freeze up, but I don't think that not freezing up is much of a choice either. If you don't, the correct action is so obvious, you can't help but take it.

[siderea]

I guess in part I don't see her actions as overly heroic. [...]

Yet either of us could envision a scenario in which a person might have more or less discretion in action. Say, if she had had to run into a burning building or run across the tracks of an on-coming train.

One of the purposes of such rewards is not to condition the actor, but the observers. In rewarding her, the community says, "We prize those who avert disaster," not merely to her, but to the whole community. This is one way how community values are propagated: by making positive examples of them.

So the question is, "What message do we wish to send to others?" It is reasonable to think, "Others may have more discretion in their action; we want to encourage them to the act for the good of others; we shall send a strong message that acts which save others' lives are meritorious."

[conuly]

Well, I'm not firmly convinced, but I'm definitely seeing that view now.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I don't think the correct message should be: if you do something wrong, maybe you'll get lucky and have some freaky accident occur near you where you can be a hero and then everyone will forgive you and not notice you were wrong in the first place.

I think that's a crap message.

I prefer the message of: if you do something wrong, it's wrong. And if you do something great, it's great. And you will get the effects of ~both~. So, she should be punished and rewarded, each according to the things she did.

Of course, it's all rather weird for me, because discipline didn't work that way when I grew up. For example, getting punished by the school for lateness worked like this: the rule was be late 3 times and you get a detention. The practice was be late often enough as a really, really good student who is late because she is simply too tired to always get to school on time and they will not write down many of the latenesses, but will write down a small percentage of them, so eventually you will acquire a detention.

Absences worked similarly, except that the number they would record had a cap, so they'd record roughly that number divided by 4 each quarter so that I didn't have too many to be hit by the mandatory held back a grade laws. But then, I was missing more than 20% of my school days in high school and late for many of the others. All of the other solutions would have been difficult.

So, the idea of a school fairly enforcing its rules equally... I find it unlikely. Of course, an argument can be made that getting around bad rules isn't a bad thing.

Also, I got one detention in middle school (totally not my fault, although I was late, but it had to do with my family having moved) and one in high school. Both were very pleasant. In Middle School detention meant that instead of waiting standing up outside (or just barely in the corridor inside if the weather was bad) after my father dropped me off to school way too early on his way to work (because it was the only way he could give me a ride) I instead had to sit down in a classroom inside for the same period of time. A friend of mine who was also stuck going to school early on a regular basis asked if she could have detention too, but they said no, so she had to stand outside in the corridor while I sat at a desk.

My main point - it's all rather silly and nonsensical anyway. And I like to ramble.