It’s interesting that the Ethicist, who has self-identified as a lapsed Christian, did not explore several tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs with respect to the situation in the first letter. The first of those being the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Ethicist is suggesting that it’s perfectly OK to treat as pariahs a family that has admitted the wrongdoing of the parents, paid for those wrongdoings, and that the ostracism can be extended to the children. Because ostracism is how the rejected host child will experience the unexplained withdrawal of the invited child, who will certainly share this situation with classmates. There’s also the issue of bearing false witness. The Ethicist seems to believe, along with LW1, that everything read on the Internet is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It seems that a better solution would be a discussion between the two sets of parents. Who knows? Maybe the parents really have felt remorse.

It’s interesting that the Ethicist, who has self-identified as a lapsed Christian, did not explore several tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs with respect to the situation in the first letter. The first of those being the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Ethicist is suggesting that it’s perfectly OK to treat as pariahs a family that has admitted the wrongdoing of the parents, paid for those wrongdoings, and that the ostracism can be extended to the children. Because ostracism is how the rejected host child will experience the unexplained withdrawal of the invited child, who will certainly share this situation with classmates. There’s also the issue of bearing false witness. The Ethicist seems to believe, along with LW1, that everything read on the Internet is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It seems that a better solution would be a discussion between the two sets of parents. Who knows? Maybe the parents really have felt remorse.

user
no
assistant