Nice thorough comment there David, almost a follow...

2011-11-21T17:03:07.332-05:00

Nice thorough comment there David, almost a follow up blog. Your last sentence is basically a summary of my thoughts, so i think this confirms great minds do think alike.

The reason the McQueary angle is not being conside...

2011-11-21T16:01:26.440-05:00

The reason the McQueary angle is not being considered much is because it is something we all live with on a daily basis. Of course we do not experience such vile behavior daily but if you think about it, there are small moral/ethical quandaries that pop up all the time.

An example: one day I was walking home from work and I saw a little girl tearing recklessly around a corner on her bicycle. I knew that she was going to lose control and sure enough she ended up on the ground crying with her bike on top of her. Now at this point I have a decision to make: do I stop and see if this child, who I have no obligation to, is ok or do I simply frown and keep on my way? Additionally, there was a couple coming towards me and I could already see the woman's face frowning up. I decided to keep going and let the couple handle it. Why? Well my mental calculation went something like this: no obligation + secondary intervening part + absolving of any indirect blame = inaction. In prosaic terms, I could stop to help the little girl or even just see if she was ok but the reality is that a lot could happen in that time. The parent could come out irate and think I had done something, the child could claim I did something, in helping the child I could actually do something to cause more pain, etc. Additionally, society would generally be more accepting of a couple inserting themselves into that situation as opposed to a male by himself. Kids and strange men just look wrong to people. So in the end, I kept walking.

I use this example to point out that most people with normal brain function and faculty have a similar equations running at all times. There are societal pressures that can help weight certain portions of the equation but it basically boils down to survival and taking the path that is most beneficial. That may lead to a person doing something half right, completely wrong or operating in some other gray area because they have a trigger that tells them how much of themselves they should commit to the decision. In this case McQueary did what he believed to be necessary to address things from his standpoint and I cannot argue against that. He told his boss, who probably held more sway at the university than the president, and claims to have stopped the assault in some way. Going to the police, kicking Sandusky in the nuts, complaining to everyone who would listen or any other number of moral or ethical things he could have done probably crossed his mind at one time or another but that calculation for him told him that it would be beneficial to do what he had done so that was as far as he went.

This whole situation is convoluted to the point of ridiculousness. There have been cover ups, permissions for a former employee that shouldn't have been granted, and any number of people operating in morally/ethically questionable areas. The focus is where it should be, on a man who has serious problems and is committing an despicable act. What McQueary did is something we all do every day and he should neither be vilified or lauded for what was a human reaction to a confusing situation.

Comments on Adam Sloope: McQueary Milgram and Nazis

Nice thorough comment there David, almost a follow...

The reason the McQueary angle is not being conside...