Who Is To Blame For Our Actions :: essays research papers

premise of Risk Who is to Blame For Our Actions     The doctrine of "assumption of essay" clearly defines the tariffof all voluntary proceedions dramatizen on by individuals, independent of the inseparablerisk or danger involved with such actions. Are we lone(prenominal) to assume dutyfor the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negativeoutcomes as well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in whichthey are fully responsible for their actions. Living within a rural whichhouses a large amount of private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying onoutside help. In many occasions we, the individual seeking assistance, taste thepower to choose which avenue of help will be pushn. In these cases in which wehave the choice, should we not also be held responsible for the outcomes of ourdecisions, peculiarly in cases in which we have been pre-warned about anyinherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to driveon a private roadway, smoke cigarettes, imprint for a mining company, or fly on a brush aside airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to takeresponsibility for any outcome these actions may hold? The "assumption of risk"doctrine seems to ignore the fundamental obligation of entities to ensure theirnatural goals. The distinguishing compute in deciding responsibility infaultless cases which call on the "assumption of risk" doctrine is the controlheld by individuals after the website has begun. In accordance, companiessuch as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on theresponsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to workin a mine or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of theiractions to do so.     All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customersfrom a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person whoagrees to deal a discount airline ticket, which warns to "fly at your own risk,"is empower to receive the borderline service of transportation provided by theairline. The individual traveler should assume no other benefits other thantransportation. The airline company claims this act of transportation to be itsgoal of services limned. Independent of difficulties which may arise incompleting this goal, the airline may not alter the grassroots duty which it iscontractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented to performthis raw material duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an acceptedpayment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all controlover their guard duty to the accepting airline which holds the minimumresponsibility of returning the individual back to a state of safety once their