[News] Kids are mean (Rochester, NY Bus Monitor)

[coopasonic]

I'm jumping in here because I have nothing better to do for the next six minutes. I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way. I'm trying to come up with a counter example, but failing. Even in the cash in a bad found on the street, where you really ought to see if you can find the owner, there is someone who has lost the money. In this case I can't think of anyone who has been justifiably wronged or misled. The information on the donation site leads one to believe it's a pity party for the bus monitor, let's buy her a vacation because she was verbally abused and we empathize, sympathize, pity, whatever. The money is donated specifically to give her a break, or a luxury in other words. Since she will be getting enough to take 120 or so really nice vacations, it's reasonable for her to spend that on something else. The web site never did anything to make donors think that excess funds would go to any other purpose.

Yes, it would be really cool if she donated a large portion of the money to a anti-bullying charity or a group that offers training to incompetent bus monitors. That would certainly be a good deed and I know people that would feel like it was the right thing to do, but I'm not sure it is.

I guess you could say the wronged party here might be the anti-bullying charity or the aforementioned bus monitor training program that could really have used those funds being donated largely because we all feel bullying is bad. In that way I could see this as a little more gray, but I'm not going to call her unethical for hitting the sympathy lottery.

[LordMortis]

FWIW, GreenGoo, I agree with you.

If random strangers decided to shower me with money because I failed had a bad day, I'd have a good day and then send the rest of the money someplace directly related to the problem. I wouldn't be spending it on relatives.

She's not the reason people are donating money. The situation is why people are donating money. Therefore the money should be spent on something relevant to the situation.

I'm not big on care either way, but wanted GG to know he wasn't on an island with Smoove.

Is there a charity for not raising shitty kids? Or a support group for the people who have to deal with shitty kids with no power to provide retribution? Or an internment camp for not so noble savage families? I'd guess that's the expression or statement the donors are trying to make by giving this lady money.

[LawBeefaroni]

The problem is that there was no cap. There was a $5K goal (I think it was). Instead, there should have been a cap. Make it $50K or even $100K. Or whatever. But leaving it wide open leads to this problem of shifting expectations.

[noxiousdog]

I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way.

No, there doesn't.

Example:
I use a cheat to beat a game.
I tell my friend I beat a game.

Is that ethical since no one was wronged?

[Odin]

she has no ethical quandary.

In my mind she might - if the video shows what her typical reaction is to this behavior in complete opposition to what she was hired to deal with. Maybe she really did hit the lottery and these kids just randomly decided to (1) abuse (2) film and (3) upload the video one day. If I was in a position where someone filmed me not doing my job, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stepping up to collect $650K+ worth of donations for my trouble. If she takes that money she deserves every minute of scrutiny the media can possibly muster. But I do hope the next person they hire for the job actually does the work. As I said earlier, assuming the work was being done all along, the video is a fluke and the failure is at an administrative level well then I would also hope the media (and locals) start up with the pressure. But none of that requires $650K+ of guilt-easing donations.

Depends on the definition of "doing the job." Despite what a job description might say, the actual day-to-day particulars are set by the boss. If her boss told her, "Look, we get zero support from the administrators, so all you are there to do is sit in your seat and try to keep anybody from getting killed. Other than that, keep your head down. Oh, and help the driver if they ever need to back up the bus, I suppose. That would be great" then we have no business judging her (though we could judge her boss or her boss's boss or whomever else we felt was worthy).

[Covenant72]

I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way.

No, there doesn't.

Example:
I use a cheat to beat a game.
I tell my friend I beat a game.

Is that ethical since no one was wronged?

Is it still an ethical issue if you didn't tell your friend anything?

[EvilHomer3k]

she has no ethical quandary.

In my mind she might - if the video shows what her typical reaction is to this behavior in complete opposition to what she was hired to deal with. Maybe she really did hit the lottery and these kids just randomly decided to (1) abuse (2) film and (3) upload the video one day. If I was in a position where someone filmed me not doing my job, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stepping up to collect $650K+ worth of donations for my trouble. If she takes that money she deserves every minute of scrutiny the media can possibly muster. But I do hope the next person they hire for the job actually does the work. As I said earlier, assuming the work was being done all along, the video is a fluke and the failure is at an administrative level well then I would also hope the media (and locals) start up with the pressure. But none of that requires $650K+ of guilt-easing donations.

Depends on the definition of "doing the job." Despite what a job description might say, the actual day-to-day particulars are set by the boss. If her boss told her, "Look, we get zero support from the administrators, so all you are there to do is sit in your seat and try to keep anybody from getting killed. Other than that, keep your head down. Oh, and help the driver if they ever need to back up the bus, I suppose. That would be great" then we have no business judging her (though we could judge her boss or her boss's boss or whomever else we felt was worthy).

I suppose it is possible that she was specifically told not to do her job. Other than that I completely agree with Smoov. I am astounded that she's winning the lottery for being absolutely terrible at her job.

[coopasonic]

I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way.

No, there doesn't.

Example:
I use a cheat to beat a game.
I tell my friend I beat a game.

Is that ethical since no one was wronged?

I'm not sure your actions there were immoral or unethical. Now if you had a bet with your friend about beating the game, and you used the cheat, that's a different story. If you are bragging to your friend you beat the game using your l33t skills, that's a different story.

In those cases your friend was wronged. You potentially lied to him or at the least misled him.

Nobody is being similarly misled in this case except by their own assumptions.

[Odin]

she has no ethical quandary.

In my mind she might - if the video shows what her typical reaction is to this behavior in complete opposition to what she was hired to deal with. Maybe she really did hit the lottery and these kids just randomly decided to (1) abuse (2) film and (3) upload the video one day. If I was in a position where someone filmed me not doing my job, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stepping up to collect $650K+ worth of donations for my trouble. If she takes that money she deserves every minute of scrutiny the media can possibly muster. But I do hope the next person they hire for the job actually does the work. As I said earlier, assuming the work was being done all along, the video is a fluke and the failure is at an administrative level well then I would also hope the media (and locals) start up with the pressure. But none of that requires $650K+ of guilt-easing donations.

Depends on the definition of "doing the job." Despite what a job description might say, the actual day-to-day particulars are set by the boss. If her boss told her, "Look, we get zero support from the administrators, so all you are there to do is sit in your seat and try to keep anybody from getting killed. Other than that, keep your head down. Oh, and help the driver if they ever need to back up the bus, I suppose. That would be great" then we have no business judging her (though we could judge her boss or her boss's boss or whomever else we felt was worthy).

I suppose it is possible that she was specifically told not to do her job. Other than that I completely agree with Smoov. I am astounded that she's winning the lottery for being absolutely terrible at her job.

What I was saying is that we're (you're) making assumptions as to what her job is. I've rarely if ever dealt professionally with a job description that actually matched the reality of the job it represented.

[GargoyleBoy]

Let's be clear here, GreenGoo - you're the one stating that she has an ethical obligation. I don't understand: 1. The rationale for there being an ethical obligation attached to a gift she didn't ask for; and 2. The specific ethical obligation in this case.

Where does it say - anywhere - what she's required to do with this money, or that she's required to take only a portion of what was raised in her name? Please help me understand.

Context and spirit of the gift. I've already said that a bunch of times. That's all there is to it. If you don't feel those have any bearing, then they don't. For you.

It has not a single thing to do with legal, or written. Those are meaningless red herrings.

It's not a birthday present, although you guys seem to think it is, so...shrug.

When someone asks for clarification, and you just post the same things you've already said, you're not clarifying anything, are you?

Please explain your rationale for assuming that there is an ethical obligation attached to the gift. Simply stating "context and the spirit of the gift" is not helpful.

Also, please explain what her specific ethical obligation is. If there is an ethical obligation, it follows logically that there is a certain obligation - that is, that she must do a particular thing. What is it? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

That's what I'm asking. I'm asking for clarification.

Because I honestly don't understand you.

[GargoyleBoy]

I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way.

No, there doesn't.

Example:
I use a cheat to beat a game.
I tell my friend I beat a game.

Is that ethical since no one was wronged?

False argument. When you cheat, you are wronging everyone who didn't cheat.

[gameoverman]

This is an interesting discussion, way better than the subject line suggests.

I think she is separated by the process of raising the money, so there is no way she is obligated ethically or morally to spend it in any special way.

It's like if I went up to her and said "I saw that video of those kids bothering you, those bastards! Here's $20, have lunch on me grandma."

She's not obligated to spend that $20 on lunch. Once I give her that money she can do whatever the hell she pleases without any judging from me. I can control whether I give her the money or not, I can't expect to be looking over her shoulder as she spends it, deciding if she's betraying my trust.

The fact that it's slightly more than $20 that has been donated to her doesn't change that imo.

[Arcanis]

I think for there to be a moral or ethical transgression, someone has to have been wronged in some way.

No, there doesn't.

Example:
I use a cheat to beat a game.
I tell my friend I beat a game.

Is that ethical since no one was wronged?

False argument. When you cheat, you are wronging everyone who didn't cheat.

How have I harmed you if I cheated at solitaire? Is it the claim of victory? What if I just claim victory even if I never played solitaire?

[LawBeefaroni]

What if I just claim victory even if I never played solitaire?

Wait, are we at the point of proving that lying is not unethical?

[coopasonic]

What if I just claim victory even if I never played solitaire?

Wait, are we at the point of proving that lying is not unethical?

This stems from my thought that someone has to be wronged for something to be considered immoral or unethical and noxiousdog put forth his counter-example. It's based on my possibly false premise.

[Arcanis]

What if I just claim victory even if I never played solitaire?

Wait, are we at the point of proving that lying is not unethical?

I'm trying to figure out what criteria he is using to determine what is ethical.

[noxiousdog]

False argument. When you cheat, you are wronging everyone who didn't cheat.

How? In what way are they harmed or wronged?

Also, please explain what her specific ethical obligation is. If there is an ethical obligation, it follows logically that there is a certain obligation - that is, that she must do a particular thing. What is it? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

"Karen Huff (The bus monitor) deserves a vacation! ... Lets give her something she will never forget, a vacation of a lifetime!"

If the funds are not used for "a vacation of a lifetime" then they are not being used as intended. To be fair, there is certainly reasonable doubt as to whether ALL of them are intended as a vacation of a lifetime, but there is an ethical obligation to treat those dollars that were intended for vacation, for vacation. It's explicit on the donation page.

It's like if I went up to her and said "I saw that video of those kids bothering you, those bastards! Here's $20, have lunch on me grandma."

She's not obligated to spend that $20 on lunch. Once I give her that money she can do whatever the hell she pleases without any judging from me. I can control whether I give her the money or not, I can't expect to be looking over her shoulder as she spends it, deciding if she's betraying my trust.

This is -extremely- unethical. If I give my son $20 for lunch money and he spends it on anything but lunch, he has betrayed my trust unless there's a specific agreement in place that he can choose hookers and blow over nutrition.

If the parent relationship is a problem for you, if I give a friend $200 to cover rent, and instead he gambles it away and gets evicted, you really have no issue?



followup: And while there's certainly a gray area if the money would be spend on things that could be a permanent vacation, cars for the kids is WAY outside of "a vacation."

[Covenant72]

If the funds are not used for "a vacation of a lifetime" then they are not being used as intended. To be fair, there is certainly reasonable doubt as to whether ALL of them are intended as a vacation of a lifetime, but there is an ethical obligation to treat those dollars that were intended for vacation, for vacation. It's explicit on the donation page.

The first $5k would certainly be subject to what you are saying. But what about all money past that? Once we get past the original goal for vacation, we now enter a grey area and it's no longer a black and white issue.

As stated earlier, reading the comments section also seems to indicate many (most?) people are donating with the intention that she retires.

So now we have the following modification to your father/son example (ignoring the fact that she isn't asking for anything) that should easily demonstrate the grey area.

Son: Can I have $20 for lunch?
Dad: Sure, here's $40
Son: ??? (Profit)

[Isgrimnur]

Your parent/friend scenarios imply that there's a known need there that you are granting funds to meet, and that there's some sort of request being made, or at least an explicit need that's been stated.

With the bus lady, she expressed no need for a vacation, nor for funds of any point. If I give $5 to the guy on the street, I have no say, nor a stake, in where those funds go.

Random internet stranger is not equatable to parent/friend.

[noxiousdog]

Your parent/friend scenarios imply that there's a known need there that you are granting funds to meet, and that there's some sort of request being made, or at least an explicit need that's been stated.

With the bus lady, she expressed no need for a vacation, nor for funds of any point. If I give $5 to the guy on the street, I have no say, nor a stake, in where those funds go.

Random internet stranger is not equatable to parent/friend.

You're saying ethics depend on your relationship with a person?

[noxiousdog]

So now we have the following modification to your father/son example (ignoring the fact that she isn't asking for anything) that should easily demonstrate the grey area.

Son: Can I have $20 for lunch?
Dad: Sure, here's $40
Son: ??? (Profit)

I think it's more of:

Dad: here's $20 for lunch. [exit stage left]
Mom: [enter stage right] Here's $20 for lunch.
Son: ?? ... Profit!

[GargoyleBoy]

False argument. When you cheat, you are wronging everyone who didn't cheat.

How? In what way are they harmed or wronged?

I will not respond to the preposterous strawman of "how is cheating wrong?" If there's a real problem with understanding this basic tenet of the social contract, then those who honestly don't understand can go back to kindergarten and have it explained to them in words of one syllable.

Also, please explain what her specific ethical obligation is. If there is an ethical obligation, it follows logically that there is a certain obligation - that is, that she must do a particular thing. What is it? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

"Karen Huff (The bus monitor) deserves a vacation! ... Lets give her something she will never forget, a vacation of a lifetime!"

If the funds are not used for "a vacation of a lifetime" then they are not being used as intended. To be fair, there is certainly reasonable doubt as to whether ALL of them are intended as a vacation of a lifetime, but there is an ethical obligation to treat those dollars that were intended for vacation, for vacation. It's explicit on the donation page.

I am sure she will have a perfectly lovely vacation, if that's your concern. Perhaps several.

[GargoyleBoy]

Your parent/friend scenarios imply that there's a known need there that you are granting funds to meet, and that there's some sort of request being made, or at least an explicit need that's been stated.

With the bus lady, she expressed no need for a vacation, nor for funds of any point. If I give $5 to the guy on the street, I have no say, nor a stake, in where those funds go.

Random internet stranger is not equatable to parent/friend.

You're saying ethics depend on your relationship with a person?

Let me posit a scenario, and afterwards, you can answer your own question:

Let us say that tonight I have consensual sex with a (real, living, human) woman, and, contrary to what you may have heard about me, we both enjoy it quite a bit. Tomorrow, I have consensual sex with another woman, and, in defiance of the odds, we again both enjoy it. The two do not know each other.

But what if one of the women is my wife or my girlfriend? Does the existence of the relationship change the ethical situation?

[Isgrimnur]

Your parent/friend scenarios imply that there's a known need there that you are granting funds to meet, and that there's some sort of request being made, or at least an explicit need that's been stated.

With the bus lady, she expressed no need for a vacation, nor for funds of any point. If I give $5 to the guy on the street, I have no say, nor a stake, in where those funds go.

Random internet stranger is not equatable to parent/friend.

You're saying ethics depend on your relationship with a person?

Absolutely. You have an ethical responsibility to feed your son. You do not have an ethical responsibility to make sure your supervisor's administrative assistant's son is fed.

[Covenant72]

So now we have the following modification to your father/son example (ignoring the fact that she isn't asking for anything) that should easily demonstrate the grey area.

Son: Can I have $20 for lunch?
Dad: Sure, here's $40
Son: ??? (Profit)

I think it's more of:

Dad: here's $20 for lunch. [exit stage left]
Mom: [enter stage right] Here's $20 for lunch.
Son: ?? ... Profit!

Ah but that is predicated on Mom not being aware that Dad already gave you money. A simple visit to the donation page will show that the current total is in full view before you can donate any money. So now we have two scenarios:

1) Batshit Crazy Mom: Here's $20 for lunch even though I just watched your dad give you $20 for lunch!! Don't spend it on anything but lunch!!

2) More Normal Mom: Here's another $20

The existance of the second scenario is why this is a grey area and subject to your personal interpretation. Mom knows dad gave you money and it's plenty to cover your lunch but she gave you cash anyway and didn't say a word. So what do you do now?

[gameoverman]

This is -extremely- unethical. If I give my son $20 for lunch money and he spends it on anything but lunch, he has betrayed my trust unless there's a specific agreement in place that he can choose hookers and blow over nutrition.

If the parent relationship is a problem for you, if I give a friend $200 to cover rent, and instead he gambles it away and gets evicted, you really have no issue?"

Interestingly enough, I saw this type of situation play out in real life some years back. Two friends were hanging out, one mentions his financial woes to the other. The other friend, unasked, offers to loan him $300 to cover these bills. The first friend accepts the loan.

Later, they both come to me complaining about the other. The loaner complains that the money lent was spent on what he considered frivolous luxuries, not the bills the other friend was worried about being able to pay. The borrower was complaining about the loaner having the gall to try and tell him how he could spend his money(once it's in his hands it is his money).

Keep in mind the loaning friend did not say "Here, this is so you can pay off X,Y, and Z", he merely offered a loan of money. He assumed it would be spent a certain way.

So after thinking about it, I agreed with the guy borrowing the money. If you take it while committing to using it a certain way, then yes, you have an ethical or moral obligation to use it that way. Otherwise you are off the hook.

In my example, if I give her $20 for lunch, the purpose for the money is only coming from me, she hasn't agreed to use it for lunch. If it's that important to me then I need to extract a statement from her on its use BEFORE I give it to her.

If someone gives their kid money for lunch then the kid spends it on something else, that's fine as long as the kid doesn't complain about being hungry later. If your kid asks you for lunch money and then spends it on something else, that was a lie.

[LawBeefaroni]

What if I just claim victory even if I never played solitaire?

Wait, are we at the point of proving that lying is not unethical?

I'm trying to figure out what criteria he is using to determine what is ethical.

Damn. I thought we had proven that song wrong.

[GreenGoo]

It's clear that some people get it, and some people don't. If you guys are interested in continuing, have at it. I'll do my best to stay out of it from here on out though.

ND, I appreciate you stepping in, as I was feeling awfully alone, but undeterred.

Good luck if you choose to continue.

[GreenGoo]

Here's a link to Max's fundraiser if anyone wants to contribute.

It's over $6k, with a target of $2.5k.

[Isgrimnur]

Maybe we could buy him a new laptop? Or he might even put it towards an anti-bullying cause himself - it seems like he had some ideas for how to use small fractions of Karen's $ for an anti-bullying speaker to come to the school, but people quickly convinced him to let her have complete control over how it's spent. Can we do the same for him?

/thread

[GreenGoo]

Maybe we could buy him a new laptop? Or he might even put it towards an anti-bullying cause himself - it seems like he had some ideas for how to use small fractions of Karen's $ for an anti-bullying speaker to come to the school, but people quickly convinced him to let her have complete control over how it's spent. Can we do the same for him?

/thread

Lol, there are over 30,000 contributors. But by all means, take this guy's word that he speaks for all of them.

[RuperT]

It was a question. 'Envy' is a four-letter word, but it's also a basic human response. I can admit I felt it for her unearned windfall, somewhere in the hindbrain, but it was easily neutralized by an assertion of how good my life is, at the very least by the fact that I don't have to make a living RIDING TWICE EVERYDAY IN A BUS FILLED WITH TEENAGERS.

I felt no envy whatsoever for her windfall. None.

I'll wager that's not a fringe reaction, and it was certainly interesting that your response immediately went to "envy".

I guess by "interesting", you really meant "shameful" or something?
I like to try to look at motivations (my own and others) at their deepest level. Sometimes it leads to better understanding, often it leads to belly-button lint. I found marantz's post to be pretentious, and sought elaboration. He's not interested in providing it, and doesn't at all owe it to me.
Regarding 'envy', it's one of any number of base motivations that I think Inform my thoughts and actions, often subconsciously. I try to pluck them out and examine them when they breach the surface. Good daemons are stroked and bragged about, bad ones are held up to be scolded and singed in the harsh daylight. Kudos if you've personally squashed all the bad ones, but I think you're underestimating the human brain.
Likewise, a wager on subconscious imperatives would be a grand circus, particularly here where egos don't exactly run small (I say that with the sincerest affection).
We now return you to the program already in progress: "Ethics of a Lark".

[noxiousdog]

Maybe we could buy him a new laptop? Or he might even put it towards an anti-bullying cause himself - it seems like he had some ideas for how to use small fractions of Karen's $ for an anti-bullying speaker to come to the school, but people quickly convinced him to let her have complete control over how it's spent. Can we do the same for him?

/thread

Lol, there are over 30,000 contributors. But by all means, take this guy's word that he speaks for all of them.

Yeah, I can do that too.

"Karen, Please take a nice long vacation. And may we all help stop bullying one day!"
"Enjoy your dream vacation. You deserve it!!!"

And that was on the first page.

It's just not reasonable to assume that people pay attention.

[Smoove_B]

Not that anyone really cares about the kids, but apparently they've been suspended from school and using the bus service for a year.

In addition, each student will be required to complete 50 hours of community service with senior citizens and will complete a formal program in bullying prevention.

EDIT: And there's a bit more information as to what she said she's doing with the money:

Her supporters have raised more than $660,000.

Klein plans to spend the donation money on bills and donations to Autism and Down Syndrome Charities.

[naednek]

There, now the people who think it's their business for what she does with the money should be happy.

[RuperT]

Suspension from class for a year? Brutal.
Time to drag the house over the county line, I reckon.

[GreenGoo]

There, now the people who think it's their business for what she does with the money should be happy.

We already knew that.

[El Guapo]

This is where commas come in handy. Were they suspended (for an indeterminate time) and also suspended from the bus for a year? Or were they suspended from school for a year and from the bus for a year? If it's the latter, the bus part sounds redundant.

[Smoove_B]

If you read the article, it indicates that the district is still responsible (by law) to provide alternative schooling for children in question. However, they are not required to provide them with rides; I'm pretty sure that is why both suspensions are mentioned.

[BooTx]

Now how long until one of the worthless parents hires a young hotshot lawyer and files a lawsuit against the school that the 24/7 "news" channels will run with for the next 8 months?