|
|
|
|
|
|
by _heimdall
905 days ago
|
|
|
Thank you for taking the time to steel-manning this one! If this were the situation I would expect the train to show operators clear warning messages that service is due, and ultimately a message that says something to the affect of the train has been disabled or put into limp mode until it is serviced. I wouldn't expect these triggers to disable a train to only be discovered later when, for example, a train won't start without warning or stops running when its parked at a different shop to have the service done. I also would expect the service warnings to be based on something like hours of operation rather than calendar time, all heavy equipment I've ever heard of or worked on tracks service schedules this way. This argument also gets to a more common trend we've had in recent decades where those with authority step on others freedoms because they believe they know better. Individuals should be able to make their own choices and be responsible for the consequences. In this case, the train operator should be aware if the service needs and risks if it is missed. If anything goes wrong they are responsible for it. Even if the triggers to disable the train were put in with the best of intentions, if I were the manufacturer I would worry that installing such a system could potentially put me entirely liable for anything that goes wrong. |
|
|
This, specifically, is the piece where I think there's some moral ambiguity, and specifically I do not think one has the moral ability to completely disavow the outcomes that the use or misuse of one's product causes, especially when they affect third parties. If you know that use of your product under certain circumstances will cause a large amount of harm to people other than the owner or operator, and you know those circumstances are likely, and you don't do anything to prevent that, I think you have some moral culpability. Whether or not you care is a different story, and this certainly isn't a legal argument, but I think you're responsible for the outcomes of the use of your labor and resources, especially when those are easily foreseeable. I think specifically in the case of selling a train to a municipal train operator - if I told you that the trains in Poland were known for derailing because the national train operations service was financially underwater and never repaired them, would that change your opinion? (It's not true, as far as I know, but would you find it surprising if it were?)
And, absolutely to your first point - if the goal of what you're doing is to prevent unsafe operation of your product in a situation where you legitimately believe it can cause grievous harm to third parties, then yes, you do all the things you say in paragraph one. That's why I'm saying I don't think that's what the train operator was doing, but I don't think the argument is totally cut and dry that the manufacturer has no moral right to stop the trains, and I don't buy the argument that the moment you sell the products of your labor to someone else you fully absolve yourself of the moral liability for the outcomes of the use of that product.
(And again, I'm repeatedly using the word "moral" in here, because this isn't a legal, statutory, or contractual argument, it's purely a moral one. I also recognize the world's a complicated place, we all have to make decisions in which there's not a clear good answer, and nobody lives a truly pure and moral life, so take this in the spirit of an old fashioned debate about how one can live one's best life, and not a specific condemnation or Twitter-esque outlining of what precisely a witch is while one gathers kindling.)