You think?
You think?
Well, their respective positions were as follows. The director said that it was a reality show and, therefore, not their duty or obligation to intervene with behavior that someone would otherwise have taken part in anyway without the presence of the cameras and witnesses. The professor said that while there was no legal obligation to do so, there may have been an ethical/moral obligation for the director to intervene.
You think?
All agreed upon conclusion (including Ms. Hill) that the reality show has a good and valuable purpose which is to show the less-than-glamorous side of addictive behavior and the benefits of intervention. So, you could say CNN ended the story on a positive, upbeat note, highlighting the overall benefit of "Intervention." After all, it's a show that conveys a positive message.
You think?
I mean is anyone thinking?
While I don't question the ability to use TV to educate and elevate our thinking minds, what exactly were these people thinking? Are we so far afield from true reality that justifying and rationalizing the promotion of destructive behavior and the profiteering that can be had from it is a good use of technology and the media?
I used to practice law, and I know doctors who practice psychiatry, and both lawyers and doctors have a legal and ethical duty to report knowledge of a pending crime or action where an individual's behavior will place them or others in harms way.
Now, I'm not holding a reality TV director to the same standard as a lawyer or a doctor. At least not the same legal standard. But ethically and morally, don't we all, as fellow members of humankind, have an obligation to assist one another in mitigating harm when we see it? Is it enough to say that "it was going to happen anyway so why should I get involved?" Doesn't that abdicate personal responsibility in every situation? If I see someone being beaten, should I not attempt to intervene in some way to assist the victim...whether it's a call to the police or more immediate intervention? Can I walk away with peace of mind saying "If I hadn't been there they would have been beaten anyway."
You think?
I think not.
It is not enough to invent the technology, it's incumbent upon us to use it wisely.
There is evidence all over our planet that intelligent life
existed thousands of years ago in highly developed civilizations about which we
have little or no understanding. What they were able to accomplish, to this day,
defies our comprehension. Yet they are gone. Disappeared without apparent
cause.
There's a theory among spiritualists and others that at one time, the
"lost continent of Atlantis" was as technologically advanced
as we are today. But, through misuse of the power they had harnessed they
destroyed themselves. The belief is that we have reached that point again and
are getting, what is essentially, another chance to do it right.
I think that doing it right involves using what we have
harnessed for the highest good of all concerned. I also think that standing by
and watching someone put their life and the lives of other in mortal danger
without making any effort to intervene before the fact is not the
highest good for all concerned.
We are capable of so much more.
You think?
Comments