"The gloves are back on.  Except this time...they’re oven mits.”

In the Vedas there are many stories that illustrate how moral principles should be applied when circumstances place them in opposition with each other.  The conclusion is that the ultimate judge of the ethical value of an act is its result. 

This conclusion was plainly stated by Bhishma while lying on a bed of arrows that had pierced through His body.  When Bhismha was a young prince, his father, the King of Hastinapur, lusted after a younger woman.  The woman’s father initially would not allow his daughter to marry the king because the he thought his daughter’s sons should inherit the throne, but they could not as long as Bhishma was the crown prince.  To satisfy the King’s desire, Bhishma took a solemn vow of lifetime celibacy and sacrificed his right to the throne.  Because of the strength of his vow, he received the boon that he would only die when it was his own choice.  The vow later proved troublesome when circumstances dealt that there was no bloodline for the throne, yet Bhishma held fast to his vow even when the Queen Mother insisted he father children for the sake of the kingdom.  Bhishma’s speech at the end of his life (given to Yuddhisthira, the king of dharma, in the presence of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead) shows that he had realized that the results of an action are the true measure the action’s quality. 

“Even a non-Aryan, lacking wisdom, indeed a very violent man, can achieve very great piety as Balaka did by killing the blind beast. And what is astonishing when a fool, desiring morality but not recognizing it, achieves a very great sin, like Kausika on the Ganges?

“Such a question as this regarding where morality is to be found, is very difficult to answer. It is difficult to calculate, so in this matter, one must resolve the issue by reasoning. Morality is that which prevents injury to living beings. That is the conclusion.

“Morality (dharma) comes from the act of sustaining (dharana). Thus authorities say that morality sustains living beings. So that which provides such sustenance is dharma. That is the conclusion.

“Certainly some people say, ‘Morality is scripture,’ while other people deny this. I do not deny it, but in fact scriptures do not give rules for every case. Whenever people seek unjustly to rob one’s property, it should not be divulged to them. That is actually dharma. If a person can get free by not uttering a sound, then no sound should be uttered. Or, one should necessarily utter a sound if the robbers will be suspicious of silence. In that situation, it is considered better to speak a lie than to speak the truth. One who does so is freed from the sins of taking a false oath.”

This story shows that one must consider the results of the various actions to determine the morality of the actions.  Of course, the actions are still bearing results, but it appears that the girls’ actions caused real trouble for their neighbor (one effect), but the neigbor’s response has given the public perception that the girls are celebrated and the neighbor is vilified (more effects).

I feel a little bad for both parties. Personally, I think the girls used EXTREMELY poor judgement in skulking around in the dark in a rural community and refusing to announce themselves. Yes, I understand they wanted it to be a surprise. But they’re lucky they didn’t get accidentially shot.

And, I certainly understand the woman being a little concerned by the people outside refusing to announce themselves. Personally, I also don’t eat “treats” unless I know who they’re from. Too many weirdos in the world.

On the other hand, what kind of freak sues the people that brought cookies!?!  Seems a tad opportunistic.

I think poor judgement is a part of teenagehood.  I do find their poor judgement not terribly bad, considering how many kids die from drug overdoses or drunk driving.

But I think the biggest issue here is that people are not responsible for your past.  If the girls knew about past issues this woman had suffered, then they probably wouldn’t have delivered cookies after dark.  However, just because someone inadvertantly pushes on of my hot buttons, does not give me license to sue them.

It is sad that these people felt the need to sue even after the girls offered to cover their medical expenses.  It seems as if they were trying to make a statement to the girls about how we have to be careful about our actions (a lesson I think they had already learned) and ended up making a statement to the community that reads “We are curmudgeons!”

Pandu das WTF are you talking about???

YUM YUM YUM ME WANT COOKIE

both of these idiot people there deserve to be ravished by a thousand hiv positive gorrilas and then when thats done someone really needs to go to work on them.  Maybe the CIA could step in and give them one of their “palistinean hangings.” They are awful people and a waste of good oxygen.  this is a perfect example of just how screwed up our “so called” justice system is these days. 

OUT!!!!

Heh.  Now come on, Cheeta...tell us how you really feel.

HaHa,

In all seriousness… it is a travesty that two young people with only kind thoughts be subjected to this scene that those two people enabled to happen.  But this is America where it is unfortunately ok to sue someone for just about anything.

Whenever a judge (especially in a small claims court, where the process is supposed to be “quick and dirty") makes a questionable decision, people like “Cheetah” invariably site it as an example of “what’s wrong with the justice system.” Most common is the lament, “I’ve lost faith in the justice system.”

I don’t get it.  One decision in one case in one court somewhere and poof!--there goes your faith in the system.  If the light burned out in your refrigerator, would your response be “I’ve lost faith in all appliances?”

Inevitably, when some other lone judge in some other court makes a decision the “forsaken” approves of, you’re gonna hear it:  “My faith in the justice system has been restored!”

Get a grip.  Millions of decisions are made in our courts every week.  Picking a seemingly bone-headed one as representative of “what’s wrong” is, well, bone-headed and wrong.

Good point, Evan.  Balance is definitely something that we need to have when looking at our legal system.  However, because our system operates on a series of precidents, sometimes it is a single bad decision that serves as the foundation for a future judgement.