Reactions to Unka Bart's Post

[Pete Kraus <Pete_Kraus@Emory.Org>]

>I think we have to cut the driver perhaps a little slack.  For all we
>know, he might well have protested to one or more of the Al Fayeds or
>their lackeys about his unfitness to drive because of alcohol.  But he
>was a long-term personal servant to the family, and considerable         
>pressure might well have been brought to bear on him via this             
>relationship.  Perhaps he climbed into the car under considerable        
>protest -and yes, from here we know he should have refused point
>blank.  But perhaps someone said: "Refuse, and you never work
>again."

Arryn, Sarge, now Phil!  I've tried my darndest to keep my Di opinions
off the list out of respect for those who consider the subject
inappropriate, our noble Listmeister in particular. (For the record, count
me among those who find some Audi relevance to the story and who
enjoy an occasional breather from technically-oriented posts in any
event.)  

What I think Unka Bart is trying his best to tell us (calm down now, Big
Guy) is that you can't cut anyone any slack when it comes to personal
responsibility.  You are responsible, period, regardless of
circumstances.  It is an inescapable part of being.  The speculative
scenario Phil presents might induce a driver to take a chance and drive
drunk; the consequences of refusal sound pretty ruinous.  But
compared to the consequences in the Di case I'd say someone made a
gosh-awful decision.  Either way, all parties are responsible for their
actions. 

Responsibility is different from blame.  When we talk of mitigating
circumstances, we're talking blame.  This is not hair-splitting.  It is the
basis for understanding how to get along together in civilized society. 
Looking at the world historically and currently, I'd say there's plenty of
room for improvement . . .

Pete
Pete_Kraus@emory.org
'85 4KSQ
'89 250 4x4 diesel
'95 Z28