Last week I had two people over to my house, one a good friend and the other more of an acquaintance I knew from work. While we were talking in my living room, the acquaintance (I'll call him Peter) stood up and jerked his hand out in front of him, breaking a picture frame and tearing a cherished family photo. Peter didn't apologize, though after a few days he did offer to pay for the frame. Later my good friend, who knew Peter better than I did, took me aside to tell me Peter had a medical condition which caused him to involuntary move his body. My friend seemed to think I shouldn't hold a grudge, but I'm not so sure. Even though Peter offered to pay for the damage, I felt I was still owed an apology. Is it OK for me to be upset about this, or am I just being insensitive to someone with a disability?Like a lot of ethical questions, it depends on the details of the situation, specifically whether or not Peter made any effort to avoid causing damage:
--Anonymous
If Peter made an honest effort to make sure his condition didn't break that great picture of your little bro--if he tried staying away from breakable items and faced away from fragile objects--then he didn't do anything wrong. It would be no different than if your friend was careful, but tripped over your rug and shattered the expensive china--an unfortunate accident. We can't reasonably expect people who suffer from relatively minor medical conditions to become hermits and cloister themselves off in child-proof rooms.
If, on the other hand, Peter didn't care enough to avoid getting near the expensive stuff, and just assumed that his condition would excuse any minor destruction he might wreak, then he acted unethically: he knew he was running a risk picking the chair next to your valuables, and he chose to sit there anyway. In that case, he owes you an apology.
On a totally unrelated note, I toyed with the idea of calling this post "Conditional Excuses." Am I trying too hard for the cheap pun?
No comments:
Post a Comment