The Red Ball

By Shamus Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009

Filed under: Random 201 comments

This is a little unusual. I wrote this years ago, and filed it away because I had no idea what to do with it. I’m putting it up now and soliciting responses because that’s ever so much more interesting than not posting anything at all, which was my original plan.

If nothing else, perhaps this setup could be adapted to serve as a quest hook if you find yourself running a D&D game.

You’re the new kid in the neighborhood. This neighborhood runs alongside a fast-moving stretch of a four-lane highway. On each side of the highway are nice little houses with yards. You meet the other kids. They seem friendly enough. Soon after meeting them you discover that they have a rule: Never, ever go near the road.

No child is permitted within ten paces of the road. The grass in the yards reveals that they obey this rule unfailingly. The grass is green and untrampled for the ten paces closest to the road. There is a visible line in the grass between the yellow grass where they travel freely, and the green grass where they Do Not Go. They seem to even be a bit apprehensive about getting close to this line. They do so only at need, and only for a few seconds before running back to their friends near the center of the yard. Nobody ever told them explicitly that approaching the road would lead to death, but the rules were laid out so firmly and so carefully and with such sternness that the kids have concluded it would. None of them has even had the nerve to test this theory.

While it isn’t nearly as deadly as they think, the highway can be pretty dangerous if you’re careless. You figure that whoever made the rule was probably thinking, better safe than sorry.

To help make friends, you have brought with you a brand-new bright red kickball. The kids admire the ball and welcome you into their group. A game of kickball starts up. Once the game is going strong and everyone is having fun the unthinkable happens: Your ball gets knocked right over the road and lands in the opposite yard. Your new friends are horrified. They act as though the ball had just plunged into a pit of deadly vipers.

As far as they are concerned, the ball is gone forever. It’s unrecoverable. But you know better. You’ve been around roads like this before and you’ve been taught how to cross them. You could, if you wanted, walk right up to the edge of the road, wait for a gap in traffic, and get to the opposite side with little risk. You’ve done it before and you know it’s not that hard. Your parents never made any rules against crossing the road, and none of the other parents has any authority over you, so by doing so you won’t be breaking any rules. However, you also know you will be utterly smashing a taboo for these kids. To them just getting near the road is a suicidal act. To cross is unthinkable.

You could do it. You could get your ball and bring it back, but to do so you would overthrow their thinking in regards to the highway. Once they knew the road could be crossed, they would inevitably want to do it themselves. Sooner or later, they would try it on their own. They might not do it right away. They might not do it when you’re around, but it will happen. You could tell them not to do as you do, but you’re a smart kid and you know that telling them not to do something you are doing is tantamount to a dare. Are you going to let the new kid get away with that? Get over there and show him he’s not so special.

So what do you do? It took you a little while to learn to cross safely. Crossing takes patience and clear thinking. If you choose to break this taboo, are you willing to take on the responsibility of teaching all of them how to do it? If so, you will be aiding them in defying the rules. You are free to cross, but teaching these other kids against the will of their parents is quite another thing. What about the younger hyperactive kid that is watching you? He doesn’t seem to have the patience or the maturity for crossing safely, and you don’t have the authority to forbid him. He wouldn’t listen to you anyway. In fact, he’s most likely going to be the first of the kids to get up the nerve to try.

You are free to cross. No rules forbid you from doing so. It is (for you) reasonably safe. Your new ball is over there. Should you follow the overbearing rules and accept the loss of your ball? Or do you get the ball, knowing that to do so may lead one of these kids to endanger themselves?

We’re talking about kids, but approach the question with your grown-up mind: Would you get the ball?

[poll id=”3″]

 


From The Archives:
 

201 thoughts on “The Red Ball

  1. JMcNeely says:

    That’s a good moral and ethical problem and I can see some very easy ways to adapt it into various settings for role-playing games. Of course the DM would have to be prepared for alternatives to Yes and No such as, ‘go ask an adult to get it for you’.

    Also, on a side tangent: is it just me or was this article posted twice?

    edit: maybe I should have put this in the first posting instead of the second… ah well.

  2. MintSkittle says:

    Yeah, Shamus posted twice.

    We should probably go hang out in the other thread.

  3. JMcNeely says:

    *Sigh* I suppose so…

  4. Jericho says:

    No, probably not. I am very “Prime Directive”.

  5. Henebry says:

    I’m posting in THIS thread for the same reason that I’d get the ball. Because I’m different.

    cue little internal voice: No, you’re not.

  6. Yar Kramer says:

    I’d go with “no,” since that doesn’t actually exclude options like “ask an adult to get the ball for you,” and I’m an obey-the-rules nut in hypothetical situations like this …

  7. Kizer says:

    Single post now, thanks Shamus!

  8. Shamus says:

    Gah. Don’t post while uncaffeinated. Sorry for the double post. That was a comedy of errors in the background. I thought I’d deleted the original at one point and ended up double-posting.

    I’ve fixed it, but the comments attached to the second post were lost to the bit bucket.

    Geeze. Sorry.

    1. Mr. Wolf says:

      Ha, that beats, “Whole article on the front page”. Hell, that beats, “Saw this when you accidentally posted a week early”.

      Okay, I’ll go back to my own time now.

  9. Jon Tooth says:

    I think he’s just deleted the other thread.

    Well I can’t be bothered to retype what I posted there, so…

    Doh.

  10. Ludo says:

    I vote No, because if I want my ball, I can always go and get it later, when no kid will know what I did. Or I could try to talk someone on the other side of the road to kick the ball back. Or I could ask an adult to please bring it back.

    And I definitely don’t want the responsibility of bringing the Crossing Doom to this peaceful corner of the woods.
    Admittedly I’m no kid anymore (or at least reasonably not), so I must ponder the real oddity here : how did the parents manage to enforce such a strong rule, without supervision ?

  11. Shamus says:

    Also: In the “other” thread, someone asked me to explain the metaphor. This isn’t really a metaphor for anything. It’s just a hypothetical that came to mind and I was curious how people would respond.

  12. Jon Tooth says:

    I vote No, because if I want my ball, I can always go and get it later, when no kid will know what I did. Or I could try to talk someone on the other side of the road to kick the ball back. Or I could ask an adult to please bring it back.

    And I definitely don't want the responsibility of bringing the Crossing Doom to this peaceful corner of the woods.
    Admittedly I'm no kid anymore (or at least reasonably not), so I must ponder the real oddity here : how did the parents manage to enforce such a strong rule, without supervision ?

    ^^^^ That was pretty much what I said anyway. :D

  13. Segev says:

    Yeah, I’m with those who said they’d do it “later” when nobody’s watching, or get my Mom to get it for me (whether by going across herself, driving, or calling the neighbor to ask for its return).

    But curse you, Shamus; now I want to slip this into an Innocents game. Which, sadly, I lack time to run.

  14. mark says:

    Yes, its my goddamn ball!

  15. Strangeite says:

    Obviously the best solution is the grey area between the two options; but, when faced with the black and white nature of your question, I would have to answer No.

    The loss of the ball is not as great as the seemingly high potential loss of life of a child. Obviously by making such a choice you are 100% guaranteed to lose your ball, but how the story is worded it appears that probability that a child (i.e. the hyper-active, immature child) will get hurt is very high. Not 100% but high enough that the loss of the ball is a small price to pay.

  16. Marmot says:

    Shamus, that…. that’s excellent! Classic, but in a very interesting form. I’m thinking that swtiching the highway part for something else could lead to a nice base for a horror story. (note: it would still turn out pulp if the otherwise great idea was spoiled with flat characters and cliched storytelling, like it happens in most horror stories — but I digress)

    I voted “no”. My reasoning is based on this:
    a) it’s a highway that I can see and hear, not some obscure taboo that can’t be proved. One reason not to cross, because the rule makes sense so I don’t have motivation to defy it. If it were something utterly stupid, then I would have.
    b) Though good intentioned, I’d probably forget about the fact that crossing might encourage others (and less capable) to cross and be exposed to danger. A bit selfish of me, I admit, but since I wouldn’t cross it would never arise until I’d actually think of it later.
    c) even if I’m skilled and know that I can get across, it still carries a small amount of risk. Except at very very young age, I’m sure I’d be capable of concluding that even a small risk of getting instagibbed is not worth trading for a ball.
    d) if others were not afraid and thought crossing was a good idea, taunting could make me cross in a classic example of a confidence trap, assuming that I was good at it. However, they aren’t – good for them.

  17. Well, it’s kids.
    If it was adults with some kind of weird taboo I’d approach it a bit differently, *particularly* if the taboo was kept going by some kind of vested authority. And if we take it that we can be pretty sure that if you just break that taboo wham! like that, kids will get themselves killed, that’s a pretty heavy consequence just so you can get a ball.
    So while my absolute first instinct is go get the ball, second thought annoyingly prompts me to not get it.

    But . . . the taboo itself would weird me out. The effectiveness of it, the sheer thought-control-ish-ness. I’d start watching the relationship between those kids and their parents, and if I thought those parents were a bunch of controlling jerks, I’d start challenging the taboo in a more gradual way. Going a bit closer to the road into the grass. Telling about how my parents taught me ways of how if you’re real careful you can cross roads like that at need. Eventually taking selected sensible friends who won’t blab to their parents across the road with me, ideally when nobody else is around. Try not to let the dimwits in on the whole thing until I’ve got everyone else clued in about how to do it right, so they can smack ’em down if they take it too lightly.

  18. Allen says:

    Even it wasn’t “my goddamn ball”, I’d still go get it. Why should it be lost?

    Case in point: When I was growing up, I went to a Catholic elementary school. We had two yards: a front, with grass and swings and everything, and a back, which was mostly a parking lot, with a few swings and a lot of walls. Over one of the walls was a mental aid facility, but we all assumed it was an insane asylum. We were kids, give us a break.

    We’d often play a game that had us throwing the ball at the wall and trying to catch it. If you missed, you had to run to the wall and touch it before someone else threw the ball against the wall and caught it themselves, or you were out.

    Every now and then, one of our balls would sail over the wall into the mental aid facility, which was called EMI(Eric Martin Intstitute). It was strictly forbidden to go around the wall to fetch the ball. The ball was gone, in the eyes of many of us. It was forbidden by teachers, but they were hardly able to watch all of us. There were a few hundred students out for lunch at the same time, and only a few monitors in each yard.

    But I wasn’t afraid. I’d crossed through the EMI numerous times when the school’s yards were gated and closed, and I had to walk from my mom’s work at the hospital to my own home, which conveniently crossed the EMI. So I simply slipped over to the other side, grabbed whatever ball or frisbee we’d just lost, and dash back up to the road and back around the wall. I never told anyone else to do it, or that there was nothing to fear. I just did it. The taboo and the fear of the potentially mentally damaged still held firm for the other children, for the most part. And I only ever came into contact with a patient once while I was fetching a ball, and he was very kind to me.

    So, yes, I’d cross that road, and get the damned ball, and bring it back. And then I’d simply offer to go get the ball myself again if it went back over the road.

    The same goes for me being older.

  19. Sphore says:

    I would wait until they were gone to get the ball, so I voted ‘no’ for the moment.

  20. Mad Flavius says:

    I would not get the ball for several reasons.

    1) Just because my parents did not strictly prohibit me to cross said highway doesn’t mean they wouldn’t if they knew I was considering it. When I was growing up, my parents didn’t necessarily prohibit or allow every last action, because they couldn’t possibly legislate every last permutation; they instilled a basic code that they then trusted me to apply as needed in situations. They never told me “don’t play with fire,” I learned this myself. Therefore, the very idea of crossing a four-lane highway would be a foreign concept, as the possible cost of failure (injury or death) far outweighs the possible benefit (getting back my red ball, awesome though it may be).

    2) Additionally, as an intelligent child in this situation, I would have a strong understanding of the effects of my actions on others. While I understand that the Bible is not considered highly by many on this site, I will keep this brief. If it is frustrating that I quote, just look at it as a strong ethical teaching. 1 Corinthians 8:9 states “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” The author exhorts his followers that though they may not be bound by the same strictures as others, if they relish their freedom in view of the others, it may cause them to break the rules established to their detriment, either physically or psychologically. I think this is particularly applicable to this situation. While you are not forcing someone to break the rules by committing an action when you yourself are not bound by the same code, I believe it is still your responsibility to consider the results of your actions.

    3) Sneaky answer: I would just break the metaphor and log into the family computer, look up the phone number of the house across the street with Google’s Phonebook, and politely request the inhabitants return the ball by way of their vehicle at the earliest convenience. But that would preclude all this fun ethical discussion. ;)

    Disclaimer: It is most assuredly not my intent to ruffle any feathers by quoting the Bible. I would be more than happy to consider any other moral or ethical work that would have a quotation to this effect. I do not intend to imply anything about religious views–though if anyone were interested in this discussion, I would be more than happy to converse with you.

  21. lebkin says:

    I voted yes. It is not my responsible for how the other kids respond to me, especially true as a kid myself. If I was an adult in this situation, I might take more care with what image I am presenting. But I would still get the ball. Its my ball; I possess the ability to go get it, and within my own actions, I endanger only myself.

    Mad Flavius posted as I was writing my response, and I wanted to respond to his 2nd reason: that I am responsible for the actions of others that may emulate mine. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. This can be extended to crazy proportions: I shouldn’t drive my car around kids, since they might think they can drive a car and hurt themselves. I should use the stove, because a child might hurt themselves trying to cook. Its the classic lesson of just because everyone is jumping off a bridge, that doesn’t make it a good idea. If my actions hurt others, that is my fault. But if someone decides to do something that hurts them simply because they saw me do a similar action, that is THEIR problem, not mine.

  22. Viktor says:

    I’d get it back some other way if possible. Showing up with the ball the next day and no explanation would be cooler in my mind than just walking across the road. But if that wasn’t an option, if I really liked the ball, or if I thought the kids needed to learn to cross the road, I’d go across in a heartbeat.

  23. Factoid says:

    I would do it. It’s unrealistic to expect that these kids haven’t seen anyone cross the road ever. Their parents must do it.

    I would just tell them that the road isn’t lethal, the ball can be recovered safely with little risk but crossing isn’t a cinch, and they should ask their parents to teach them.

    They’re kids, so they probably won’t listen, but there was never anything stopping these kids from doing this anyway. And if their parents are that overprotective they shouldn’t be letting their kids play with other kids who won’t obey the local taboos.

    Any kid willing to accept the road as forbidden should probably also have a good degree of stranger-danger.

    1. Shamus says:

      Noteworthy: The comments lean strongly in the “no” direction, but the poll results say “yes” by a good majority.

  24. addicted says:

    I voted yes. Besides now knowing that it would be better to do it when they are not around or asking for help, when I was a kid I would have done it.

  25. Binks says:

    I voted yes. There’s no legitimate reason for me to give up something of mine on the off chance that something bad might happen to someone else if I go get it. However I would take some measures to help ensure nothing bad would happen. Firstly I’d tell the other kids that it’s a bad idea to cross the road without getting your parents to teach you how. Secondly I’d do my best to make sure that the kids parents were aware that their taboo was broken.

    However this ignore a simple fact, the taboo against crossing the road is a horrible way to ensure that your kids are safe near roads. Eventually someone is going to cross a road in front of them, and they’re going to see that it’s not the pit of vipers they thought it was. The idea that irrational fear of something can protect you from it is the exact same problem which leads to security through obscurity, the horribly ineffective anti-drug programs (drugs will make your eyeballs explode!) and other problems with our modern society. These hypothetical parents aren’t helping their kids by making them irrationally afraid of roads, they’re hurting them in the long term.

  26. Macil says:

    I voted yes.

    This is an argument of the beard. At what point is the line drawn where we become unable to act because of a fear of what it may cause others to do?

    I think if I should inhibit my actions because of fear of what it may cause others to do, then I should be terrified to step outside the confines of my house.

    Responsibility must always remain with the entity concerned, otherwise we fall into some kind of infinite regress of discovering the true source of responsibility.

    Children or not, we all have self-limiting beliefs and perceptions that inevitably result in mistakes. We are not omniscient and cannot have the all the information about every decision we make. We must always act from some degree of ignorance. Does it make more sense to blame others (the kid who wanted his ball back) or ourselves? Which is more functional in society? Which makes more sense morally/ethically?

    However you justify it, I cannot see how getting the ball back would be somehow wrong: if anything, it would be right, since not only does it further the goals of the concerned entity (the kid who wants the ball back), it could reveal flaws in the characters/beliefs/mindsets of the children/their parents/teachers — a flaw that should not be tolerated in a society (a dangerous belief don’t you think?) but rooted out and replaced with something a tad more sensible.

    For some reason I am reminded of Assimov’s robots: “Logical, but not reasonable.”

  27. OEP says:

    Get the ball when no one is looking, and say it was magic.

  28. I’m of the thinking that “we must push against the rules and continually challenge authority”, so I voted yes. Obeying the rules for the sake of the rules is superstition and counterproductive. Same goes for taboos.

    Instead, we should understand the purpose of the rules: in this case, it’s so we don’t get hit by cars. With the proper knowledge of street crossing, the rule no longer has purpose.

    However, these are children, not adults, so it’s a bit different and my arguments may not apply. Their minds are still developing.

  29. Duffy says:

    Yes. Based on the theory of it’s not my responsibility that they adhere to a strange stretch of logic/rules. It’s their fault or their parent’s fault for not preparing them for a possible task that they will almost definitely encounter in their young lives.

    Why do we treat children (and sometimes adults) as “stupid”? Most people aren’t necessarily stupid, just ignorant. Those that stay ignorant after being informed are the “stupid” ones. This of course is a many layered idea, it’s easier to cross a road for a kid then learn calculus.

  30. Mari says:

    I voted no but for a fairly unique reason based on what I’m reading here. Quite simply I desire to fit in. Doing something outside the norm like crossing the street defeats my desire to be like the other kids and risks being ostracized or rejected by them. Better to lose the ball and gain the acceptance of peers than to regain my shiny red ball but (possibly) be forced to play with it alone in my own yard while all the other kids stand around talking about what a horrible person I am for crossing the street.

    Why are you all looking at me like that? I know not everybody is this way but there are enough of us that I’m not THAT weird. I just admitted it is all.

  31. Xpovos says:

    It’s closer now, with yes still ahead. I voted yes, and here’s my two-fold reasoning.

    1) There’s rarely anything gained by hiding truth. Truth tends to come out eventually. Maybe not for this generation of kids, but somewhere down the line an even more unfortunate bounce of a ball will result in a situation where a child ends up in the forbidden zone completely unwillingly and comes to no harm. Then the cat is out of the bag with absolutely no backstop. Here, at least we have a potential for rational explanation from a knowledgeable source.
    2) There is no reason to believe that children who obey this rule so unfailingly will not also believe additional myths that we can provide to them. ‘I will retrieve the ball with my magic powers, but you may not watch, or else they will fail, and I may die.’ Then while they’re not looking you can safely retrieve the ball without compromising their situation anymore than by adding to the mystique of the road.

  32. RCTrucker7 says:

    I voted yes. To me the key factor is this; “If you choose to break this taboo, are you willing to take on the responsibility of teaching all of them how to do it?” No, I’m not. Now if it had not been forbidden for them to cross, then I wouldn’t have a problem teaching them how to. I think that the fact it’s been forbidden brings on the aspect of responsibility. There’s no “danger” in teaching someone something that is allowed to be done. You’re not taking on the responsibilty of teaching them how to break the rules then, you’re simply teaching them how to do something. So if I teach them, and one of them gets killed by a car, I don’t feel I bear any responsibilty for that, as they were allowed to do it in the first place.

    But if they’re not allowed, and I teach them, and one of them gets killed by a car, then I do bear responsibility for it, as I am the one that taught them how to break the rule. So I refuse take that responsibilty to begin with, by not teaching them how.

    That doesn’t mean I’m not going to go get my damn red ball back. After all, I mowed a shit load of lawns to earn the money I used to buy it. ;-)

  33. Trianglehead says:

    Hell, I’d get the ball and play it up like I was a super-hero. When I was a kid that is definitely what I would have done.

  34. MintSkittle says:

    I would go get the ball, because it’s my ball, I’m responsible enough to watch for traffic, and wait for an opening to cross. I could tell the other kids the basics of pedestrian road safety, but whether they choose to exercise road safety is their choice. As for the younger, hyper-active kid who is likely to be struck down by his own foolishness:

    http://despair.com/mis24x30prin.html

  35. Chris says:

    Given the stark black and white nature of the poll, I voted “yes”, simply because it’s my ball that I paid my money for (or received as a gift from family or friends). If this situation happened to me in reality, I’d likely either get a grown-up to do it, or wait until none of the other kids were around. But in no circumstances would I purposely leave my ball over there and chalk it up as a loss, when getting it back required something as simple as crossing the road.

  36. Terrible says:

    My kid mind voted while my adult is still thinking it over.

    But he says that getting the ball would make him look brave and cool in front of the other kids. Plus it would be a waste of a perfectly good ball to just leave it there.

    My adult mind reminds me that I wasn’t all that brave or cool as a kid and probably would have been convinced by the other kids that the highway really was dangerous, even if I didn’t think so before.

  37. Mythin says:

    A couple of people mentioned this, and I feel the same way. I think Binks put it better than I can, but basically having a rule out of fear, rather than intelligent caution out of understanding, is ridiculous. The child who owns the ball, in this example, is cautious around the road because s/he truly understands the danger. Therefore, s/he only crosses the road at need and carefully. The children who are afraid of the road through taboo are, as the example said, going to cross the road dangerously through some type of dare.

    Telling a child not to do something with no reason and no explanation is a sure way to make that child do something. Having a child be informed of the consequences and being told that they shouldn’t is a much better way to ensure they won’t do something. It would not be my responsibility in this situation to enforce the irrational fear of the unknown instilled in these children by their parents.

    In short, I voted yes.

  38. Macil says:

    @Macil: *Asimov. :P

  39. JohnW says:

    I would beat up the hyperactive kid until he crossed over and got the ball for me.

  40. Lazlo says:

    Yeah, I’d get the ball. Would have when I was a kid, probably still would.

    Part of it is this: Death is an intangible… It’s obviously never happened to me, or any of these other kids, and young kids especially have a hard time grasping things they don’t have experience with. Chances are, they don’t fear death. They fear getting into trouble with their parents. Me showing them that death isn’t certain doesn’t change that fear. They may start to wonder why their parents have this rule and mine don’t. Perhaps their parents just don’t trust them as much as mine do me, or maybe it’s something deeper. Maybe their parents do trust them, and aren’t afraid so much of death, but are terrified that the local DCF will see kids in the road and take them away from their parents for their own safety. As a young kid I think it would have taken a fair amount of deep explanation to impart that sort of understanding on me. And some kids, on getting that sort of understanding, might have tried to actively subvert their parents.

    Of course, the amusing epilogue would be “…and as I lay there watching my blood seep into the grass, I thought to myself, I guess not every neighborhood has the armed robotic death sentries to guard their roads…”

  41. Strangeite says:

    I am surprised by how many people don’t feel that “They are their brother’s keeper” at all.

    I just can not subscribe to the thought that “There's no legitimate reason for me to give up something of mine on the off chance that something bad might happen to someone else if I go get it.” Of course where to draw the line is up to the indivdual but to state unequivically that I have no responsibility for the actions of others strikes me as wrong.

    If the chance that someone is going to be hurt is 0.0001%, then by all means get the ball. If the chances that someone will get hurt is 95% but you still would get the ball….

    Well, let me just say that I am glad I have the neighbors I do.

  42. Jimmie says:

    I voted yes. It is not my responsible for how the other kids respond to me, especially true as a kid myself. If I was an adult in this situation, I might take more care with what image I am presenting. But I would still get the ball. Its my ball; I possess the ability to go get it, and within my own actions, I endanger only myself.

    You are, in fact, not an island, nor is anyone else. It is convenient to think of ourselves as islands because it absolves us from responsibility or even from thinking very hard. It makes our lives a lot easier, but does a lot of harm to the people around us who we’ve decided aren’t particularly important anymore.

    I can’t help but wonder why the kids don’t cross the road. Shamus mentioned the rules being laid down but it’s not certain who laid them down or if they’ve ever had to be enforced. Kids are notorious rules-breakers and I’ve yet to see a rule introduced so sternly that it wasn’t disobeyed fairly quickly.

    There are things here I don’t know which would cause me to hesitate before I broke a rule that every kid in the neighborhood takes as seriously as death. Could The Road be more dangerous than I believe it is? Could there be some sort of harm that I cannot see in that ten-pace buffer between Safe Ground and The Road? What if I’m wrong about the other parents not having authority over me?

    A good GM could fill in those holes with all sorts of goodies, I’d imagine.

    It’s also interesting to me how many folks here assume that they are the most intelligent actor in this scenario.

  43. Flying Dutchman says:

    I voted yes in theory. But as a kid, I would likely assume that everyone is afraid of the road for a reason other than traffic. I am very gullible and I would probably think there would be some child molester hiding in the bushes near the highway or that the lawn belongs to some angry man who doesn’t like people walking on it, which is why local kids stay away.

  44. Stark says:

    Many of the yes comments seem to be along the lines of “What other people do, based on what I’ve done, is not my responsibility.” This is, while partly true, also stunningly self serving and naive.

    In an adult situation this typically holds true for everyday actions – if you as an adult decide to cross a 6 lane superhighway on foot and some other dumb ass adult decides to do it as well, then no, it’s not your fault if that person ends up like a bug on a windshield. However, if you as an adult do said action and a child then emulates you – well, our society says that’s a bit of a different story.

    We assume that an adult is capable of making a weighed and balanced decision based not only on the outcome of your little cross freeway jaunt but also based on prior experience and the learned ability to predict results from actions taken. We’d hope that the second adult could see that the initial crosser waited until there was almost no traffic an also happened to be an Olympic class wind sprinter and then accurately asses their chances as compared to that other person. If a child is watching it’s a whole different animal though. Younger kids do not have the experience yet to make an accurate assessment of the danger of a particular act. They learn by trying things. So, if a kid watches Mr. Speedy cross the super highway, he might come to the conclusion it’s a bad idea… but he’ll probably just assume that since that guy did it it must be easy. The adult here does indeed have an obligation to consider the effects of his actions on a child observing him – we do this all the time in our society. We, as a society, have decided that certain activities are generally not appropriate in front of children. This is why we come up with things like ratings for movies and video games – some things are just not suitable for a young mind which has yet to develop a firm grasp of reality vs fantasy and safe vs unsafe actions.

    Of course, Shamus’s example is simplified and is about a child and other children… but it has a flaw. Namely that no child is likely to wrestle with the issue in the way it has been presented. One child knows how to safely cross the road (having presumably been taught by an adult to do so) and has not been instructed that the road is off limits. This child would, 9 times out of 10, probably just go get the ball without even considering the effect his actions may have on his peers. This is because the faculties needed to wrestle with an external moral dilemma do not exist in small children the way they do in adults. We don’t typically develop those skills until out teenage years (and many seem to never develop them at all) – and even then they must be taught. It would be the very rare child who would even see the ethical dilemma here let alone be bothered enough by it to give it more than a moments fleeting thought.

    There is a reason we call adults role models for children after all.

    It should also be noted that even as adults we routinely concern ourselves with others emulating actions of ours which may not be safe/fair/good for the world/etc. We do it all the time in fact – when we push society to become more energy conscious or recycle or try to stem the proliferation of nuclear arms we are in effect saying that even though we may know how to cross the road to get the ball we shouldn’t do it because we don’t want others to get hurt doing it themselves. Clearly it’s vastly more complicated than that but the underlying principle – recognizing that responsibility for ones actions extends beyond yourself – is the same.

    And for those who still say that they bear no responsibility for what other people do based off of their actions… well, you are the people who scare me in life.

    OH, and sorry for the wall o’ text. Clearly I need to setup my own blog.

  45. Aergoth says:

    I’ve never been particularly susceptible to peer preasure that I can remember, and I never did care much for stupid rules in the first place. Yes, not playing in traffic is a good idea, but for the sake of a shiny new ball, the 10-12 year-old me would have said “screw you guys, I’m getting that ball”

  46. Shinjin says:

    but approach the question with your grown-up mind

    I answered yes since I’d have been unwilling to accept the loss of my precious.

    Special note – your question is flawed. No child puts that much thought into *anything*.

  47. Dave says:

    Given the restraints (think with my adult mind). No.

    I’d call across to someone else on the other side of the street and get them to throw/kick it back.

    I know I’m assuming that people actually leave their homes with this answer, but it’s stated in the first paragraph that there are nice homes on either side of the highway, so I think it’s a safe assumption.

    That said, my kid mind wouldn’t have thought ANY of the other stuff. I would have gone and got the ball.

    Even smart kids don’t always think their actions all the way through. And I can’t ever recall thinking to myself as a kid about how my actions would affect the motivations of others.

  48. Shinjin says:

    @Stark

    This is, while partly true, also stunningly self serving and naive.

    While you intended this as an assessment of the (presumably) adult population filling out the survey, you manage to sum up children perfectly.

  49. Matt C. says:

    I said “No” only because there weren’t options for “Ask a grown up for help” or “Wait until I’m sure the hyperactive kid won’t see me.
    That said, if you had put this question to the ten year old version of me he’d probably shout “Yes” over his shoulder as he was running across the street.

  50. Strangeite says:

    This reminds me of a discussion of the Cain and Abel story in Bill Moyer’s Genesis.

    In the book, one of the Rabbi point out that when Cain says to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” it doesn’t necessarily mean that Cain was trying to be a smartass. He maybe asking the question because he really doesn’t know the answer. At that point in time, there had never been death and it could be argued that Cain was not aware of the consequences of his actions. Therefore, his “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was his appealing to God for guidance. Obviously the story provides an answer, and that answer is “Yes, you are your brother’s keeper.” In this particular interpretation of the story, it is Cain’s learning of this fact that leads directly to his son founding the first city (i.e. Civilization). So the Rabbi argues that us being our brother’s keeper is the foundation of civilization.

    I thought this was interesting, even though I am neither Jewish nor Christian.

  51. Mark says:

    My vote: No.

    My justification: 1 Corinthians 10:27-33.

  52. Sydney says:

    I tried to vote “Yes”. I really did. Literally, my mouse slid up and down what must have been twenty times. Because all my personal principles align with voting “Yes”. Then I asked myself: “If I went and got the ball, and the next day Susie next door tried to cross the road and got splattered, would I feel guilty, all philosophy aside? Could I, with a straight face, invoke abstract arguments about Truth and Responsibility when I met her parents at the funeral?”

    I voted “No”.

    Can I pose that secondary question to all who answer “Yes”? Let’s say you reason that “Well, they should know better than to imitate me without thought”, get the ball, and the next day, the hyperactive little kid dies. What do you say to his parents?

    I don’t mean this as a challenge, or a Phoenix Wright OBJECTION!! I’m just interested to know what you think about this. Having struggled with this question myself, I’d like to hear the other side of it, just for my own curiosity.

  53. Maddy says:

    As a kid, I’m sure I would have. And I probably would have gotten run over. With the invention of “Frogger” I discovered that I might not be good at this kind of thing.

    As an adult, I’d probably call someone across the street to throw it back. We could work out a deal where we agree to take care of this stuff for each other.

    If that wasn’t possible, I’d take care of it later when nobody was looking. I am definitely going to get my stupid ball back one way or another.

    If I were a parent in this neighborhood, I’d also put up a fence to keep the dog from running into the road, and I’d organize a campaign to get a pedestrian overpass so that everybody has a safe way to cross. Grumble grumble stupid dangerous road.

  54. Rebby says:

    I voted no, but I also try to think of other alternatives and a few have been mentioned – go get it later or get an adult to get it for you. Even if I knew how to cross the road, i’ve always been pretty cautious and I would want the kids to like me, and like someone else said early – they might shun me if I cross the road. So – i’ll wait and get my ball later or get an adult to get it.

  55. krellen says:

    Proving I am, in fact, a RPG player, I voted yes: I go down to the cross-walk, people-bridge, or whatever safe crossing place has been put in place (even if it’s a mile up the road) and cross there to get my ball. If someone has built residences that close to a highway, they’ve built a means for pedestrians to cross it.

    I think I broke the game. :D

  56. Danath says:

    I said yes, adult or child situations, I have done things I shouldnt have, I have called out Pepsi as being shit at taste tests, I have called PETA terrorist supporters in a class that talks about them being an ethically repsonsible group, I am perfectly willing to call people stupid for things I feel are stupid. Its not up to me to teach them though, thats up to them, I wouldn’t teach others how to think, or how to do something, not without them asking me first anyways.

    Course at a funeral I would use tact, thats a bit different than calling someones problems stupid. This is adult thinking, as a child I would never have contemplated something so deep, as an adult, I find irrationality about things utterly ridiculous. Not that I am not prone to the same at times, but I hope others feel like they can counter my views and if I can learn from that, all the better.

  57. Primogenitor says:

    Not straight away, but maybe later when no-ones looking. Of course, this leads to the “self-propelled red ball”, or “child of infinite red balls, or “red ball eating grass of doom”, or “ghost child that disobeys the rules”, or you actually being killed/injured from bad luck, or someone watching you anyway, or rocks fall and everyone dies.

  58. Strangeite says:

    Shamus: About time for you to chime in with your answer. Not fair to have us go on the record and not you.

    1. Shamus says:

      Strangeite: Ah. Fair enough.

      Honestly: I’d leave the ball, go home and complain about the unconquerable stupidity inherent in humans. I think the parents are doing their children a disservice, but it’s not my place to overthrow their teachings. Don’t come between a mother & children and such. If the parents are REALLY endangering the kids, then another adult should talk to them directly instead of me bypassing them and teaching their kids what I thought was better.

      The stakes are too high, and in the end it’s just a ball. You get ’em in a bin at Wal-Mart for $1.

      Having said that, I still don’t think getting the ball is “wrong”. It’s just… rude.

  59. I’d just go get it. Life isn’t safe and it doesn’t do any service to kids of any sort to try to prevent them from exposing themselves to danger by playing mind games of the “I won’t get the ball so the taboo stays in effect”.

    Besides, a possibility that you completely failed to consider, Shamus, is that these obviously mentally passive and obedient kids will be horrified that you broke the taboo and utterly ostracize you from that moment onward. You can’t KNOW whether your actions will motivate these kids to run out into the road because *humans have free will*. Basing your actions off what you IMAGINE other people are going to do is ridiculous and flies in the face of one of the necessary virtues: independence.

    So go get your ball back.

  60. scragar says:

    I know it’s a completely horrible move on my part, but I’d get the ball. I have a bit of a weak sense of empathy, so to me if some kids are dumb enough to walk near the road after being told not to and without any understanding of road safety, well, they deserves everything they get.

  61. Burning says:

    Taking everything in the story at face value, I voted “No.” True, my actions would not directly hurt anyone. True, I would not be forcing anyone to behave unsafely. However the problem is set up such that if I cross there is a high probability that one or more of the other kids will be inspired to do something dangerous (for them). I’m not comfortable with the view that I have no responsibility for that.

    It took a lot of suspension of disbelief to take the story at face value. That might have been deliberate on Shamus’s part; I don’t know. I think it would be tricky to set up the hypothetical in way such that (a) it is plausible that I would have all the insights attributed to me, but at the same time (b) my audience would not be prepared to accept my authority when I said “Don’t try this yourself.”

    I have responsibility for the other kids copying me because I recognize this as a likely outcome. As a child, I doubt I would have figured this out. If I had, I probably would have assumed that they could do it as safely as I. A child with realistic insight in this situation would bear no moral responsibility for going to get the ball, because they would be unlikely to conceive of the bad outcome.

    To realistically understand the consequences, I’d have to be a grown-up and not a kid. But if I were a grown-up, there would be no problem with me saying “Kids, obey your parents. I know what I’m doing when I cross this road, but you don’t know what you need to do this safely.” A kid who wouldn’t take me as an authority would be highly unlikely to have bought into the taboo in the first place. Which would pretty much absolve me from responsibility.

    So as a grown-up, yes I would go get the ball, because I could prevent the unsafe imitation. As the child I was, I would go get the ball, because it wouldn’t have occurred to me that something bad could happen. Only accepting the restriction that I am a child with a grown-up’s insight am I lead to answer “No.”

  62. Sydney says:

    Shamus: I hope you do posts like this again. You’ve got the DM’s touch for framing situations such that the “right answer” isn’t implied by the set-up, and this is one of the best comment threads I’ve ever read.

    Also, moral dilemmas like this are my heroin.

  63. Mythin says:

    Sydney, as to your second question, I have an answer to what I’d say as well as to what I’d think.

    As far as what I’d actually say, I would give the family my condolences and nothing more.

    As far as what I’d think, I’d wonder why the family would be willing to live that close to something they obviously found dangerous without giving their child the tools to deal with this eventual possibility. Do the parents just allow their children to lose stuff all the time? Have they never heard of a thing called a “fence” to avoid losing balls? Do they have no protocol to get the lost items? If they do have a protocol, then I would assume the other children would have informed me of it, which would change my answer from a “yes” to a “no.”

    Basically, there’s not nearly enough information to make an informed answer. Based on this limited information, and the limited set of answers, I would still answer yes despite your question.

    I would do my best to inform the children that I had been shown how to safely cross by my parents, and if they wish to learn how, they should ask their parents. But beyond doing my best to ensure their safety, I can not force their actions one way or another.

    Let me post a different question, should the Mythbusters cancel their TV show because they often perform dangerous acts? Kids can watch The Discovery Channel just as well as adults.

  64. Karizma says:

    I voted No. As a student of anthropology, one of the most dangerous things is to show up and say “You’re wrong.” You don’t know where it could lead. This isn’t just applicable to kids and a road, it’s applicable to adults too. Around the world, people do very different things than we do, people do things we would look at and think are “wrong”, but they’re not wrong, just different.

    These kids have created a survival tactic: Avoid the road. Breaking that tactic does allow danger, and it’s utterly foolish to freely shatter the paradigm without any forethought. A good anthropologist must know how something will be received before implementing with wild abandon. For example, an indigenous village in Central America might desire a church to be built rather than an infant hospital. You might THINK it’s more important, but they would rather have a church, and even if you disregarded their desire and built the infant clinic, they might not even bother to use it.

    Thanks for the great moral hypothetical Shamus!

  65. Sydney says:

    Mythin: I don’t think so, because they’re adults. As long as there’s an appreciable gap to where children can go “Okay, these are grown-up things to do, I can’t touch”, things are what they are. Besides, where does a ten-year-old get a hacksaw, a megaphone, three sticks of dynamite, and a Jack Russell Terrier?

    The difference comes when the gap isn’t appreciable – one kid can handle a power lawnmower, the others can’t. One kid can swim, despite the river being deep; the rest can’t. But they’re all still kids, so it’s easier to think “He can do it, why can’t I?” This is more dangerous, because there’s no obvious dividing line that makes the difference in ability tangible, and also no authority from the ball-owner to say “I can do this, but you can’t yet, okay?”

  66. SiliconScout says:

    I say yes.

    I would not even think about it to be honest I would go get my ball.

    As a kid I knew everyone had different rules. Some of mine were worse some of mine were better but most were actually the same.

    In fact knowing me I probably would have crossed when I first heard about the “taboo” just to see why it was so forbidden.

    Now if it was going into some guys yard or into the “spooky” woods that might be different. But crossing the road. Heck if it was good enough for the chicken it’s good enough for me.

  67. locusts says:

    I voted no, with my adult mind doing all of the justifications that have already been presented here. However, truth be told, with my kids mind I still would not have gotten the ball for two reasons. One is the reason Mari gave, I would want to fit in. Until I read Mari’s post I would not have acknowledged that reason, but it is true. The second reason is that as a child I was a coward. Even knowing it was safe for me to cross, my cowardice would have convinced me not to go get the ball. Yeah, I was a coward and I am ok with that.

  68. Eightbitmage says:

    Let's say I cross the road and the next day someone gets hit.

    True if I hadn't crossed the road someone wouldn't have done it after me. But you have to remember that if the parents had taught them how to properly respect the road and how to cross it safely it also would not have happened. I may be the immediate cause but I am not the only one to be blamed.

    If I really crossed the road I would explain why, and unless this is some weird world where kids don't know what a car hitting you does, I think they would get it. I'm not saying they wouldn't also cross, but they would understand why. In that instance I feel like I'm absolved of any wrongdoing.

    Part of what makes the entire situation hard is that it is pretty contrived. What happens when the kids grow up? Do they never cross roads? If I cross the road and others learn to do it safely and they make friends with the kids on the other side am I responsible for that as well? What if some kids die, but a number of children are born equal to the number that die as a result of some of the kids on my side meeting and eventually marrying some kids on the other side when they grow up.

    What if a kid on my side knows CPR and he sees a man on the other side having a heart attack? If he had no idea how to cross he might miss the opportunity to save a life.

    Here is the big one: What if later someone gets over the fear and crosses anyway, or some other new kid does the same? Are you responsible for not explaining to all the other kids when you had a chance? That is when I would feel most guilty.

    I originally saw the whole thing as a metaphor for abstinence only education. You know how condoms work (how to cross), but everyone else has simply been taught that sex is evil and bad and wrong (the highway) if you aren't married (an adult). Which may explain why I thought of it as I did.

  69. phiend says:

    Seriously by the time you made the decision whether to cross or not, the kids on the other side of the road would have found the ball, been all happy about the red ball from the bad lands and started playing with it. Ending up kicking it back across the street. Problem solved.

  70. Martin says:

    I. These aren’t real human children, these are some sort of rule-obeying android. You can mind control some of the children some of the time, but not all of them all of the time.

    II. Who the heck abuts residential lawns with four lane highway without a barrier? Is there a minefield abutting the back lawn? A sex offender’s rehabilitation center annexed onto the preschool? Sheesh. Lucky they installed the robokids.

    III. A lot of folks are framing this as a trade off of personal small loss vs. potential large loss for others. I see a safety vs. liberty trade off in the childhood context. We (some of us anyway) worry about trading safety for freedom for adults, but never question it for kids. If letting children think for themselves might result in the slightest danger, don’t let them. In a beautifully tragic bit of irony, this is highly dangerous in the long term.

  71. Scott says:

    If I had the cognative abilities I have now as a child, I wouldn’t get the ball.
    Simply because, by breaking the general rules that the ‘natives’ live by and stepping out into the street I would become an outcast, a leader, or both.
    None of which I would want to be.

    I am my brother’s keeper. This is a principal that I live by. I am a little sad to see that so many people said ‘yes’, not necessarily because I disagree (as a child I would have crossed right away), but because of the reasons given so far. Mainly “If some kid got hurt, it’s not my problem.” I’m not saying your wrong it’s just that I don’t see it that way, and like most humans, I wish everyone saw it my way.

  72. OEP says:

    Ok, a more serious answer. I find it tragic and appalling that so many people here are willing to help perpetuate a lie in the name of so called safety. By not allowing these people to understand their environment and deal with actual dangers, you are relegating them to second class status.

    Fact: It is safe to cross the street.
    Fact: The other children have been taught a lie, or at best an incomplete truth.

    Let’s frame it another way.

    Suppose you were one of the other children. Would you rather know the truth? or be kept in the dark?

    The Truth shall set you free.

  73. Duoae says:

    I voted “No”.

    Partially because there’s no need for me to indirectly endanger the other children’s lives. But also because the ball was a bridging device – it was there purely because i needed to become ‘one of the gang’. Through the ‘trauma’ of losing the ball i am bound into the group…. we have common ground and empathy and now i am part of them. The ball has served its purpose (maybe i kicked it across the road on purpose) and is no longer needed.

    Plus, if i am so powerful and knowledgeable, the ball can be recovered at any point in time. I am in no rush.

    [edit] OEP your facts are oversimplified and therefore essentially wrong.

    Fact: It can be safe to cross the road, sometimes, if you’re careful and of sound judgement and have good sight/hearing.
    Fact: The other children have been taught that the road is dangerous – it is. Saying anything otherwise is just being ignorant.

    Sometimes telling someone the truth bluntly is the wrong way to introduce the whole truth to that person because they focus on the wrong thing and take away the wrong message – as you have done. The road is not “safe”…. but can be crossed safely.

  74. Lalaland says:

    You can’t help others by not doing something out of fear, you lead by example. Some would say that any injury to the hyperactive fidgety kid by you disabusing him of his fear of the road is your fault, they’d be wrong. If you take the time and energy to demonstrate a risky task performed safely then you have fulfilled your obligation to your fellow man. Shielding people from risk with ignorance merely insures that they are incapable of dealing with the threat when it inevitably arises.

    To me it’s like not sending your son/daughter to sex-education and then wondering why they had unprotected sex. The essential outlines of the example are the same, the kids are taught to fear sexuality (the road) and stay away from it, one kid trys safe sex and reports its great (retrieves the ball) one of the others then goes around sleeping with anything with a pulse and gets syphilis (gets run over crossing the road). How could you blame the kid who did the responsible thing for what happened to the irresponsible one?

  75. lebkin says:

    There is a fine line between being watching out for others and being responsible for someone else’s stupid actions. While I don’t think one should act like one is on an island, there is a fine line of what I am actually responsible for.

    If a child is running in front of a car, I will do my best to stop them. If they want information about the dangers of the street, I will give it. If they ask for help crossing the street, I will help them if possible.

    But if I try my best, and the child still makes it to the road and gets hit by the car, I am not responsible for that. I will feel terrible, but I am not responsible.

    I am also not responsible for them if they decide to blindly follow me, or attempt to repeat my action later. This is just like I’m not responsible for a drunk who sees me have a drink and that inspires him to drink himself sick. If it was someone I knew, and I knew the person had trouble with alcohol, I might not have one out of politeness. But even so, that person’s actions are their own, and they are responsible for them, regardless of the external factors.

    This is something that just goes back to how I was raised as a kid. Nothing else one else did was ever an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. No matter who else did it, I was in charge of my own actions. And I think that applies equally to all people capable of acting independently.

    When dealing with children, part of that is equipping them with proper information. The children in the moral dilemma above are hindered by not knowing how to properly deal with the danger of the road. Had they been, they would all be able to cross safely with little risk, as the boy with the ball is.

  76. Dev Null says:

    Go and get it later, in the dark, when noones looking.

    Or holler over the road to the kids over there and get one to kick it back.

    (I am so crap at multiple choice questions – I vote C) Other…)

  77. Ysabel says:

    I’m a little startled that there are as many no votes as there are.

  78. Calli says:

    What if hyperchild did in fact have ADHD? And, on top of that, is your little brother, three years younger?

    Because that’s what I had to deal with growing up. And maybe I was a strange child — no, scratch that, I was utterly abnormal compared to the norm — but I was aware of that from an early age and I had to look out for him in situations lacking adult supervision. Call it a sense of personal obligation, but it probably helped that we got along well. (Told you I was strange.)

    But no way in hell would I cross that road with those kids around. Especially because, as mentioned, there are other options than straight-out ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and even as a child I was aware of “Go tell a grown-up” (and often used that as my default reaction for similar situations, actually.)

    And if the taboo is in place for adults as well? That raises so many questions about how the setting functions that it breaks the exercise for me. Not to mention you are screwed no matter what you do in that situation, even if the consequences don’t show up for years.

  79. Ryplinn says:

    The road is not “safe”…. but can be crossed safely.”

    Actually, the road is safe, barring barefoot burns on a hot day and the like. It will not bite, poison, or rob. Focusing on the road distracts from the true danger–the speeding cars–and perpetrates a falsehood.

    I voted yes.

  80. Paladin says:

    I might go for it if there were some way to go retrieve the ball later without them knowing I did it (tell them someone from the other side kicked it back over or something) but going over there would encourage them to try the same, and ill-prepared as they were someone would get hurt. It may be feasible however to perhaps teach them how to cross the road, maybe setting up some kinda practice mini-road. Make a game of it, having some kids play as the ‘cars’ zooming back and forth on the pretend road as kids learn how to cross it. If someone gets impatient and gets bowled over by another kid hopefully think ‘that was unpleasant, I’d better not try the same with a real car’. To sum up, the ball can be replaced and would be lost for now, but I’d try to teach them about road-crossing.

  81. Duoae says:

    @Ryplinn

    Hehe, no need to be facetious. By ‘road’ we were talking about the whole concept…. obviously a little bit of tarmac isn’t dangerous :)

    Tarmac /= road.

    A road has cars, lorries etc. It is defined as a “passage for vehicles” and is taken as such – knowing it as a road does not distract from the dangers of roads. Focusing on an incorrect assumption of what something is, is dangerous.

  82. ngthagg says:

    I answered yes. The rule about the road is a bad rule, because it has no justification without a higher level of understanding. As far as the kids know, they stay away from the road simply because it is forbidden. This can be seen in their apprehension about even approaching the line. They have no knowledge about the dangers of the highway or cars. They believe that the rule is about crossing that line on the grass.

    When I move into this neighbourhood, I have a better understanding. I know why the rule exists (to keep the other children, and me, safe) but I also know a better set of rules to accomplish this same purpose (look both ways, cross when the road is clear, etc.). My set of rules is superior, because they can be applied to all situations involving cars, not just the street in front of my house.

    If I submit to the inferior rule, I am abandoning my greater understanding of the situation and it’s consequences. I become deliberately ignorant simply to follow an inferior rule in favour of a superior rule.

    Consider some examples: What happens to this children in a parking lot? Do they know enough to protect themselves where there isn’t a convenient line dividing safety from danger? What about if one of the children goes to play at a friend’s house across town, where the line isn’t present? Do they know that it’s acutally the road that matters, not the line?

    The other factor that leads me to say yes is that eventually these kids will become old enough to understand the real reason for the rule. Perhaps one of them will become brave enough to cross. If they do this without guidance from someone who understands the purpose, they will likely become angry and resentful towards their parents, and may consider abandoning other rules based on the assumption that their parents lied to them. After all, they have a poor understanding of consequences right now. It would be much better for them to reach a higher understanding with me as a guide: someone to explain to them why I am able to break the rule, and what other rules I follow to achieve the same purpose.

    Incidentally, this is all from my perspective as an adult. As a kid, I would have followed this rule, even if my friends were breaking it.

  83. Alex says:

    If the kids are impressionable enough that telling them not to cross the road after you would invariably lead to them crossing the road anyway just to be rebellious punk kids, then surely they would never have given a second thought to the Rule of 10 Paces. Not unless the parents convincingly scared the living crap out of them in enforcing this rule, which I don’t think has ever stopped any kid from doing something they weren’t “supposed to” anyway.

    Sometimes curiosity kills the cat. But it’s never squelched the curiosity of the other cats.

  84. Steve C says:

    I voted yes.
    I believe that children should be exposed to the world, not isolated from it. If their world view equates “impossible” with “taboo” they will face another eye opening danger in the future. It’s inevitable as it’s part of life. Small acts like witnessing someone else crossing a busy highway prepare them to make decisions about their own well being in the future. Maybe it will be to cross a road to help someone in trouble, maybe it will be what to do when separated from a parent and lost in a mall, or confronted with an offered smoke, maybe it will be when a babysitter does something they shouldn’t.

    In all cases, more knowledge leads to better decisions. That extra knowledge is the reason why hypothetical me can even make a decision about crossing the road in the first place.

    Answering Sydney (#53) If the hyperactive kid got killed on the road the following day, I would feel terrible and guilty because I would have been responsible. It would have still been the correct decision to get the ball. Calious I know, but life is sometimes. I would offer my condolences to the parents but that is all. I would be thinking “bad parents for not teaching their kid well.” It’s a sad fact that not all children make it to adulthood. I remember thinking in high school about some kids in my class, “You aren’t going to make it to 20.” And they didn’t.

    BTW real non-hypothetical me would not get the ball. It’s “fast moving” (aka dangerous) highway and it’s a frigging ball. Someone laying in the ditch screaming for help on the other side… yes. An easily replaced ball no.

  85. Liz says:

    Yes, I get the ball.

    Thinking about it as a child — it would never have occurred to me to think that far ahead and, being a child and therefore childish, I was essentially selfish. My ball!

    Thinking about it as an adult — If something is treated with a great deal more fear than it actually warrants, then it is the responsibility of those who know how to approach that thing to educate those who don’t, whether that thing is a busy highway, an unknown or potentially dangerous creature, or a strange culture or philosophy.

    Since I am, in this example, apparently a child with the thinking facilities of an adult, it means that I don’t immediately rush out to get my ball, but I don’t hide that ability, either. I say, “Look, I can get the ball back. I know how to cross the road. But it is a little dangerous, so please don’t try it yourself yet, okay? If you want to do it, I’ll help you learn, and I’ll get my parents to talk to your parents so we can do this without getting hurt and breaking the rules.”

  86. ehlijen says:

    Assuming I was fully aware of the situation as laid out in this question (which as a newcomer I don’t think I would be) and have my fully functional adult mind (quiet you :p) I would not upset the local custom that is intended to keep their kids safe and makes sense to me.

    As either a kid, or someone new to the area (or both) I’d of course be oblivious to all this and blunder about trying to get the ball back and probably ruin the entire neighbourhood.

  87. Ryplinn says:

    @Duoae

    I was being completely serious. These kids are, as you say, focusing on an incorrect assumption of what something is. They treat the road as if it were a poisonous snake, fearing to not just cross the grass line but also approach it, as if the highway could rear up off the ground and swallow them whole. In effect, the kids are afraid of the tarmac itself.

    Alternatively, these kids could know full well what the true danger is–speeding cars–and are behaving in accordance with the principles of risk minimization, since cars do not always stay on the road, but I didn’t know anyone who thought like that when I was young. Also, that raises the question of who exactly thought it would be a good idea to put a highway in the middle of a residential district with no guardrails or other safety measures.

  88. Burning says:

    Taking off the window dressing of the problem, it seems to boil down to the following elements:

    There is a task which can be performed safely with certain precautions, but which is dangerous if these precautions are not taken.

    There is one person who knows how to perform the task safely and has some understanding of the importance of the precautions. We will call her the Expert.

    There is a group of people who don’t know how to perform the task safely, and who seem to be ignorant of the fact that it can be performed safely. We will call them the Novices.

    Finally, the Expert believes the following things:
    1.) If the novices see her perform the task, they will attempt to imitate her,
    2.) they will not imitate the precautions,
    3.) they will not consult any other experts before imitating her,
    4.) nothing she can say or do can prevent them from imitating her,
    5.) nothing she can say or do can teach them the necessary precautions before they imitate her.

    Is it all right for the Expert to perform the task in the presence of the Novices, if the cost to her is very small compared to the probable (in the Expert’s belief) cost to a Novice of performing the task unsafely.

    Now as I mentioned in an earlier reply, I have a hard time believing all the premises. As such, I don’t really have a problem with someone rejecting some of the assumptions, but recognize that you are doing so. While I agree with a lot of the comments about that the kids shouldn’t be so ignorant about the road and need to be taught traffic safety instead of superstition, the problem sets up the case that you believe any attempt by you to do so will fail.

  89. vdgmprgrmr says:

    Hm… I don’t know. I would probably wait till they were gone, then go and get it. I would do this if I had already read this post, and the metaphor I come up with below had entered my brain, but before reading this, I would probably just trot across the street and get my sweet ball. I voted Yes.

    So, the first thing I thought of after reading this was The Zone. Not necessarily the STALKER Zone, but the Roadside Picnic Zone, more specifically. It’s like The Zone in that there’s one thing that everyone assumes is deadly (a spot between two pristine trucks in their old, run-down surroundings, for example), but one person figures out how to cross (Red and Kirill go into the garage and obtain the full empty behind the trucks). Another sees it, and tries to replicate it, but may be injured or killed because they may not have the same knowledge of the action as the original person does (SPOILER—-> Kirill doesn’t notice a strange web on a wall, and accidentally rubs against it, and dies of a heart attack the next day, because he didn’t have the same knowledge or study time that Red had (Red had spent some time previously studying the area around the full empty, so eventually he could get it and survive)<—-SPOILER).

    Because of the similarities to The Zone, and my strange fetish for the concept of The Zone, reading this was really awesome, Shamus. Good work.

  90. Ryplinn says:

    @Burning

    Well, when you put it like that…

    *switches to chaotic evil skin*

    Do it, encourage them to follow, and watch them burn. Only the strong and swift survive! Muahahahahahaaa!!!

  91. Guus says:

    I voted yes. I think that rule is very stupid, and as mentioned before, that I with my better knowledge can break the rule with justification.
    Also, I believe that kids have to break rules to learn. They have to get hurt in order to learn what not to do, first time helping in the kitchen and touching a hot pan for example.
    Of course the danger here is higher, but the premise is the same.
    Learning can be dangerous but is essential for humans. Therefore, I’d do it, and teach the kids how to do it.

  92. JKjoker says:

    I voted yes

    I believe in natural selection, if they do something stupid so be it, if they get hurt crossing the street is it your fault for carefully crossing to accomplish something ? or their parents for taking the easy way out and making a taboo instead of teaching them why the road is dangerous and how to cross it if they really need to

    The parents responsibility is to teach their kids how to/not to do things, when they should/shouldn’t and prepare them for a harsh world, if you take the easy path and tell your kids “don’t go there or the monster if gonna get you”, instead of explaining them its dangerous because this and that you are just postponing a problem they’ll have to face sooner or later, and because of it they will probably not be ready when the time comes, it’s like when parents bitch about the tv putting crap on the air/games being violent because they don’t want to spend time watching/playing with them, if they did they could stop them from watching bad things and explain what they might not understand instead of trusting a “stranger” to do what they can’t be bothered doing

  93. Sho says:

    Maybe I grew up around weird kids but thinking about my childhood, I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch that the kids would accept the road taboo, challenging it only when another kid broke it.

    Regardless of whether or not I am responsible if I get the ball and some kid gets squashed, I could do without the guilt I would probably feel–rational or irrational, I’m pretty sure I’d feel guilty. And I imagine the other kids would blame me (which would be stressful) and ostracize me (kinda makes it pointless to still have the ball). I’m not responsible for teaching the other kids how to properly regard the road, but I am responsible and/or accountable for my own actions.

    As to why there’s fast-moving four lane highway thing right on top of a residential district… blame urban sprawl?

  94. Mythin says:

    “Having said that, I still don't think getting the ball is “wrong”. It's just… rude.”

    But Shamus, is it not just as rude to be expected to follow the rules of others to your detriment? Especially when those rules that are demonstratively nonsensical within the context of your example, since you know that it is possible to cross safely?

    I suppose an argument can be made for the whole “when in Rome” thing, and yes, the ball is only $1. On the other hand, this whole experiment is problematic because we were asked to react as if we had the cognitive ability of adults, but the body of a child. And then were asked a “yes” or “no” question. With the cognitive ability of an adult, I can come up with many better solutions than the black and white options given above.

  95. Dragonbane says:

    “I vote No, because if I want my ball, I can always go and get it later, when no kid will know what I did.”

    Funny, I voted Yes for the same reason. I didn’t say WHEN I’d go get the ball… ;)

  96. Lanthanide says:

    I skimmed a few of the above posts, but haven’t read them all (far too many, far too long).

    I’ll add my two cents, also refer to post #90:

    Why cannot the expert and a few other brave novices all cross the road together to get the ball?

    This avoids the whole ‘dare’ factor, and it lets the expert pass on some of their knowledge to the novices. I see this as far superior than the novices simply watching the expert performing the task with little understanding, with the potential to then recklessly try to imitate it.

    This would also allow the expert to build up peer-pressure, and help any backlash against the parents – you are ONLY allowed to cross the road when you do it with me, or 2 of your friends. Obviously these novices are easily regimented by rules, so if the expert imposes this rule clearly enough they can build in safe-guards against reckless behaviour.

    Another side here is that it exposes the novices to actual experience if crossing the road in a ‘safe’ environment. Having lots of cars whizzing around and noise is going to be a new, and probably quite scary, experience for them. Next time they do it they’ll be in a better position to know what to expect, and are much less likely to panic whilst in the middle of crossing.

  97. Freebeema says:

    I think you thought about for too long and when you turned around all the other kids had gone inside to play xbox.

  98. Antwon says:

    My ideal response probably would have been of the “go inside and ask my parents to get the damn ball for me” or “cross the road later, when I’m certain that no one is watching” variety… but given a binary choice, I pick “no”, for reasons that echo many of those already voiced upthread:

    – I really don’t want to find myself as the social outcast. Being the new kid… trying to fit in with a new group of peers… and immediately branding myself as the Breaks Your Inviolable Rules dude? Oof. Someone’s going to tell their parents, and it’s just as likely as not that their newest inviolable rule will involve staying the hell away from that dangerous new kid. It’s easily worth the price of a lost ball to keep the peace and not become a social leper.

    – If one of my friends ends up following my road-crossing lead and gets themselves pancaked the very next day, I’d feel terribly guilty about it. I could try to bluster with as much “hey, they’re independent entities, no one forced them to try to cross the road” and “dude, I told him not to do it, the moron” rhetoric as I’d like… but in the end, I ended up being responsible for a fellow person’s death in a fairly direct manner, in the sense that it never would’ve happened if not for me. That would just crush me right there.

    Either way: pretty nifty thought experiment right here, and very interesting to see what all rationales everyone else employs. Thanks for posting this, Shamus.

  99. Sam says:

    As George Carlin once said (I’m paraphrasing): Children should be taught to question everything.

    Including authority. Blind demands like those the parents make should be questioned.

    Also, the scenario doesn’t specify the ages of the children. Are we talking about 12 year olds? Or 5 year olds? There is some importance in regards to this. Even though parents’ authority and blanket statements like “Don’t go near the road!” should have a reason as to why the kids shouldn’t go near the road, it depends to some extent how old the kids are. If they’re in the double digits, age-wise, I’d think they would be smart enough to ask why, and if they aren’t given a straight answer, they should be allowed to learn to cross the street by the parents. If, however, they’re in the middle of the single digits, it’s different. Sure, everything an adult says at this point in their lives is gospel, but there should always be a reason given as to why it is gospel.

    As to the poll, I answered Yes, based on my interpretation that the kids were 10 and up, since not many kids below that age I knew played kickball. And because no explanation was given as to why the road should never be traversed. There needs to be a reason for this law; otherwise, it’s just blanket statements created to keep the populace scared.

  100. Cybron says:

    The way the question is worded seems to imply that the other children crossing the road is nigh inevitable if I break the taboo. Under those circumstances, there is no way in which getting the ball is a responsible action. I would not have the injury/death of others hang upon my shoulders.

  101. Ben W. says:

    I voted “Yes” almost without thinking about it. Whether it’s the right thing or not, I have no doubt that’s exactly what I would’ve done.

    That being said, my life has taught me that I have little to no control over what other people choose to do and feel. While I would certainly be much more hesitant in a similar situation now than I would’ve been as a child, I am not at all confident that you, I, or anyone else can reasonably predict how any real person would respond to their influence. If you think otherwise and want to take responsibility for them that’s fine, but I don’t consider it a particularly smart decision.

    I was a little disappointed at how many of the other commenters actually seemed upset by people disagreeing with them. Maybe this question touched on fundamental differences in the way people see the world, the way political discussions always do.

  102. DKellis says:

    I’m finding it interesting that the comments here range from “you are all horrible people for voting Yes” to “you are all horrible people for voting No”.

    Personally, I didn’t vote, because my answer is “I don’t know”. Even if you were to tell me to assume that the scenario is exactly as stated and there are only two answers, Yes and No, and I absolutely had to choose, I still can’t answer. I’d certainly do something, but that choice would not be burdened by any reasoning at all. It would be a choice based on impulse and gut feeling, and if I were to be placed in exactly the same situation again, I may not pick the same option.

  103. Duoae says:

    @Sam – that’s a good point about the ages. I’m not American so a red ‘kickball’ doesn’t really mean anything to me but the fact that *I* brought it along to impress and befriend the other kids makes me think i (and the other kids) was under the age of 5 or 6 – old enough to be left alone in a yard (apparently next to a road!) but not old enough to not be playing with childish toys and to not have been introduced to the green cross code (road safety, i guess, for the US peeps)

  104. LintMan says:

    I voted yes, but mentally adding a “…but later, after they aren’t watching” caveat.

    But as others have said, this concern is really all adult thinking – I don’t think many kids really think and prioritize in those terms. I think more likely reasoning would be:

    – “I want to show how brave/cool/adult I am, so I will do it”
    – “I want to fit in, so I won’t do it”
    – “They’re so scared of it, maybe they know something I don’t, so I won’t do it”
    – “It’s my new ball and I’m allowed to go get it, so I will”
    – “I’ll ask my mom/dad to get the ball for me”
    – “We’ll yell across and try to get someone on that side of the street to throw the ball back over”

    In a kid, I see any of those concerns/ideas being far more a factor than worrying about whether other kids might try it.

    Here’s an somewhat different case I wonder how the “no” voters would respond to:

    You (a kid) are an expert skateboarder, able to do all those fancy/dangerous tricks like sliding down railings, etc, as you get around town. You move to a new town where no one’s seen anyone doing that stuff before, and whenever other kids see you, they are amazed. Some might even try to replicate your tricks. Do you stop doing all your tricks on the chance that one of them might get hurt trying to do one they’ve seen you do?

    The differences with this case being that
    – it is slightly more “real world” with less workaround solutions
    – has somewhat similar chances of health risk and the other kids emulating the behavior
    – it removes the “breaking the taboo” concerns while leaving the “personal responsibility for other’s actions” ones.

  105. Enno says:

    I strongly believe that intelligent people can make intelligent decision if you give them enough information. And as such, I don’t like following laws just because they’re the law. So I said Yes.

  106. Visi says:

    Yes – But later, after they’ve all gone in for tea or whatever. I want to be accepted into the pack, but I also want my nice red football back!

    There’s also the option of asking a parent to go get it, or shouting to somebody on the other side of the road.

  107. The Stranger says:

    I would absolutely go get the ball. I don’t think it would even be the dumbest thing I’ve ever done to recover a ball.

    I also deny any responsibility for others’ actions, unless I’m actively encouraging it. Nothing against those who wouldn’t go get it, but I can’t accept responsibility for every kid in the neighborhood. I can accept responsibility for what happens to my ball. Also, I don’t think, even as an adult, that I could resist the lure of being bad-ass enough to casually do the unthinkable.

    It’s amazing how strongly I feel about this – I don’t think I had a strong opinion until I started writing it down. I wonder if I would feel as strongly the other way if I had started out by saying “no” and then set out to justify it. That might be an even more entertaining thought experiment.

  108. Scott says:

    @LintMan

    I certainly would continue doing awesome trick moves and encourage my fellows to practice them and help teach them how.
    This scenario requires the other kids to have skateboarding equipment and (unless they are COMPLETE novices) some experience with gravity and friction, especially when applied to rough cement sidewalks.
    Now if you did the trick and handed your board to a kid who couldn’t do it, that would be a different story.

  109. Saint Rising says:

    I care little about the other kids because I’m evil. And I care not about the rules because I’m chaotic.

    Ha. Haaaa…ha.

  110. OEP says:

    @duoae who said “[edit] OEP your facts are oversimplified and therefore essentially wrong.

    Fact: It can be safe to cross the road, sometimes, if you're careful and of sound judgement and have good sight/hearing.
    Fact: The other children have been taught that the road is dangerous – it is. Saying anything otherwise is just being ignorant.

    Sometimes telling someone the truth bluntly is the wrong way to introduce the whole truth to that person because they focus on the wrong thing and take away the wrong message – as you have done. The road is not “safe”…. but can be crossed safely.”

    Actually, I am answering the scenario as it was written. Shamus explicitly stated that you know crossing the street can be accomplished safely. That is in the scenario as written. It is a fact within the context of that scenario. Unless you are merely arguing semantics, in which case I leave you to it.

    If you read my post, I in no way advocated any specific method of “breaking the news”. I merely advocated that restricting information was not the right thing to do. It seems that perhaps you are the one focusing and making an erroneous assumption.

    P.S. I never said “the road was safe”. I said “Fact: It is safe to cross the street.” by which I specifically meant “The street can be crossed safely”.

    Obviously I did not communicate well, since no one addressed my real point.

    By abridging information, you are doing a disservice to these people. Again, if you were one of the other kids, what would you rather be done to you.

  111. Corsair says:

    Yes. If you fear something, you give it power over you. If you respect something, you approach it with caution. These kids do not respect the road, they fear it, and that fear makes them weak. Only until they are shown that the Road is something to be respected, not feared, will they mature in life. They can’t continue to avoid the road all their life.

    Besides, we all know it’s because those parent jerks just want the grass to stay green.

    1. Shamus says:

      In response to the “wouldn’t you want to know the truth” position that OEP and others have stated:

      I’m coming at this the other way: If someone thought I was being a bad parent or disagreed with how I was raising my kids, would I want them to overthrow my teachings because they think they know better?

  112. Yar Kramer says:

    Player: “I cross the road to get the ball!”

    GM: “All right …” *rolls dice* “As you get within ten paces of the road, a Tarrasque suddenly looms out of the bushes …”

  113. Danath says:

    @Yar Kramer

    You are eaten by a grue.

    Also it’s not about truth, their parents rules are not my rules, and if its stupid, I won’t do it. Then again I don’t care about exile (I am a loner anyways), and am not very empathetic towards others for the most part, although I do use tact to avoid OFFENDING others, I will not abscone my beliefs for theirs, I will not tell others what to do or think, nor do I expect them to try to impose their own views on me.

    Really this is just your viewpoint vs theirs, and whether you are willing to abandon your beliefs for the beliefs of others. Some are, some are not, personal opinion, and I disagree with it being rude, it would be rude for them to disallow you getting your ball or to attempt to get your ball when your perfectly aware how to cross the street properly.

  114. Mistwraithe says:

    I’m amazed how many people voted yes.

    The question says to approach it with our adult mind. The question also says we are talking about what example we want to set to kids, while controlling another kid (myself).

    Kids copy other kids, particularly kids their own age. They copy everyone actually but every kid I know is willing to accept that adults are capable of doing things they themselves can’t or shouldn’t (they might still try them but they certainly recognise a difference).

    Putting all these facts toegether it seems obvious to me, using my adult brain, that getting the kid I control to cross the road will lead to other kids crossing the road, a task the scenario also clearly states they are not capable of doing safely at this point in time.

    So I have a choice, using my adult brain, of letting the kid I control lose a ball, or letting the kid I control do something that is very likely to lead directly to death or maiming of another kid.

    Logically where is the choice? There is only one option which is acceptable to me using my adult brain.

    Frankly as #45 said the people who voted yes scare me.

    Or at least they would if I thought that all of them had actually read and accepted the facts presented to them in the scenario properly. Many of the people voting yes appear to have said “I voted yes because I don’t accept/believe the scenario anyway or I wanted to answer as a kid would instead of using my adult brain”… which I understand but it severely biases the results IMO because you are no longer answering the scenario as set.

  115. Zee says:

    This dilemma is pure foolishness. I would go back to my folks house and have them call over to the other house so I could get my ball back. The adults would get the ball and bring it back thus making sure the other kids don’t break their taboo and getting my ball back at the same time.

  116. J Greely says:

    Last Friday, I happened to have my window open, and heard a neighbor kid yelling at his little brother for being stupid enough to throw a ball over the fence after repeatedly being told not to. Now the ball was gone, just gone, and someone would have to wait until late that night when the neighbor got home.

    I stuck my head out and told him they could come over any time and retrieve their stuff. I guess he’d forgotten that I’d told him that years before…

    -j

  117. A Gould says:

    I’m in the “yes” camp.

    I moved around a fair bit growing up, and every neighborhood has these little customs and rules that get handed down from kid to kid. (Part of how kids today still sing “Ring around the rosie”, I guess). A lot of them might have been good ideas way back when (for your example, maybe somebody got run over by a car once). But the rules tend to far outlast the reasons (again, no-one goes on the road, but no-one knows *why*, either).

    If you haven’t guessed, I was one of the rulebreaker sorts growing up. :)

  118. Coffee says:

    Okay, I roll against my Dexterity… What’s the DC rating of a highway?

    Now I want to see a game based on this idea, in the same vein as the old Rugrats episodes where they devolved into fantasy…

    Nobody knows what resides on the other side of the road, or even within 10 paces of the road. One kid’s big brother’s friend’s cousin once went into the green grass, and he was never seen again.
    The next neighbourhood over is a savage land, where wild dogs menace you, and the fire hydrants are purple… And the witch on the corner won’t steal your eyes if you don’t walk on her path, and touch the tree three times.
    That kind of thing.

    On topic, though, I’m probably in the No camp. Kids, rocking the boat? Not going to happen.

  119. Strangeite says:

    I have read all of the comments and I am simply shocked by how strongly people feel about their “Yes.” I have presented this scenario to several people this afternoon and everyone said “No.”

    I don’t know if that says more about my friends and family or about commentors online.

    Shamus: I also agree with you and see this from the parent’s side more than the child’s side.

  120. LintMan says:

    @Shamus: You said “overthrowing your teachings”, and I can agree that would be annoying or worse if someone was a actively copunterteaching something to them. But is that really what’s going on if the new kid goes and gets the ball? He’s not telling your kid to do it, he’s doing something he’s allowed and perfectly capable of doing. That’s a big distinction, IMHO.

    What if the teachings to the kids were “You should never ever wear the color red”? Should the new kid be expected to go home and change if he was wearing a red shirt? Should he never wear that shirt again (or anything else red) in the presence of those kids?

    And of course that leads to:
    What if the teaching was “You should be Religion X and follow the rules of Religion X”, and a kid of Religion Y shows up? Should the new kid be expected to follow the rules of Religion X when around those other kids? What if he follows the rules of Religion Y while in the presence of the other kids? (Note, I’m not talking about the new kid proselytizing to them, just following a standard rule like, say “Every 2nd Thursday is Crazy Sock Day!”)

    On the other hand, the teaching might be “Don’t steal or do drugs”, and the new kid is discovered to be a thief or a druggie.

    Where is the line drawn? There’s “protecting your kids” on one side, and “tolerance of other’s differences” on the other. The answer is very situational, but it seems to me that we can’t necessarily expect/demand the rest of the world to “play along” with what we teach our kids, even if we think that our teachings are the most commonsense and reasonable things. On the other hand, I’d certainly not want my kids around the thief/druggie kid in my last example. Parenting isn’t easy.

    1. Shamus says:

      I should have phrased the question: “Would you get the ball right then and there”, as that would have eliminated a lot of the confusion in the thread. Sorry for that. It’s hard to anticipate all the ways something like this could be interpreted.

  121. SatansBestBuddy says:

    Interesting problem.

    Took me a whole minute of thought before I clicked, “No.”

    Was gonna post my reasons, but I had to scroll for a good minute to reach the comment box at the bottom of the page, so I fogot it.

    Meh, such a long thread means somebody else has likely already said it, anyway.

  122. Darius says:

    I would get the ball later, when those kids aren’t watching me. To me, that’s a yes. That sort of applies to those other commenters who said that NO, they would get it later. That’s technically a yes, since he never said you had to get right at that moment. If you consider it that way, the YES answers might outnumber the NO answers by an even greater amount. I wonder how many other YES answers were because of that thinking?

  123. Cuthalion says:

    Taking the dillema as stated, using my adult mind, I voted no.

    1) I strongly believe that we have partial responsibility for the actions of others taken due to our influence. It’s their fault because they did it, but it’s my fault as well because it never would have happened if I hadn’t done it first. I concur with the people referencing Corinthians from the Bible.

    2) Even if I wasn’t responsible, there is still the question of which results in the highest net good. Yes, I would be somewhat disadvantaged, but it would eliminate a moderate chance of multiple injuries on multiple people, ranging from negligable to severe to death. Even though it’s only a chance, the possible damage to all the kids and their families outweighs the probably damage to one kid.

    3) Besides, I can just go get the ball later when no one’s looking. But even if this possibility is not allowed for the purposes of this thought experiment, I would still answer no for the two reasons above. All this reason does is further reduce the damage to me, thus making it even harder to justify a yes answer. But as I said, I’d still answer no even if I was guaranteed to lose my ball.

    That said, if I did not have my semi-adult mind, I would’ve run for the ball.

    Also, you guys that are nitpicking the scenario are missing the forest for the trees. It doesn’t have to be loophole-proof; you just need to be smart enough to think abstractly. You’re all smart enough to type coherently, so you’re probably smart enough to do that.

    Was gonna post my reasons, but I had to scroll for a good minute to reach the comment box at the bottom of the page, so I fogot it.

    Try pressing “End”. :P

  124. Cuthalion says:

    So would that mean that if you would not get the ball right then and there, you could still get it later? Or is it supposed to mean that you either get it right then and there or don’t get it at all?

  125. Luke Maciak says:

    Yes, I would go get the ball and yes – I would take the responsibility of teaching these kids to cross the street and question the silly taboo. In fact, I would actually urge them to never, ever let anyone control them this way.

    I mean, think about it – the parents of these children are purposefully misleading them about the danger of the highway. Instead of teaching them how to safely cross the street, they infuse them with some sort of mystical, irrational fear. It is not only dishonest, but also VERY DANGEROUS.

    One day one kid like me comes along, crosses the street and then what? All of a sudden bunch of kids get hurt because the taboo is gone. What if another kid moves in, and he crosses the street without thinking – what if that kid doesn’t notice the taboo?

    I would feel it was my responsibility to teach these poor kids to cross the street safely BEFORE they get hurt. Yes, I would take that responsibility, because their parents are obviously not doing their jobs.

    These kids should already know how to cross that street safely. It a parents responsibility to make sure their children know how to navigate their environment without hurting themselves. Creating irrational taboos is not parenting – it is asking for an accident.

    What you described here is a sheltered society based around a very flimsy taboo. These things are unhealthy and dangerously unstable. If one thoughtless act perpetrated by an outsider can not only shatter the groups’ worldview but also destroy their only security model then this system is bound to fail. I mean, it is designed for spectacular, dramatic failure.

    If I don’t get the ball then I’m only helping to perpetuate this unhealthy system. I’m part of the problem. It is my duty as a responsible human being to smash this taboo.

    That’s my take on this. It is my honest belief that there is no authority that cannot be questioned, and that no rule should be followed blindly.

    I'm coming at this the other way: If someone thought I was being a bad parent or disagreed with how I was raising my kids, would I want them to overthrow my teachings because they think they know better?

    Well, I’m not a parent – but I do have parents and they have raised me to value their rules and their guidance over that of anyone else. So despite peer pressure, and despite what other adults told me I usually stuck by the rules set by my folks. Maybe it’s because their rules always made sense to me, and I always knew why these rules are in place, and why I should follow them. They were rational.

    So I would say – if you are doing it right, then you should never fear someone else will “overthrow your teachings”. You should trust your kids to know better and stick to what they know is right.

  126. ngthagg says:

    Shamus 114: Lintman in 123, covered this, but I want to add my agreement. If I go across the road, that’s not overthrowing the rules of the other kid’s parents, because those rules don’t apply to me. As stated in the original description, crossing the road is not going to be breaking any rules.

    I understand that crossing the road in front of the other children may encourage them to disobey their parents. But that disobedience isn’t my fault. These parents have devised a very poor rule that their kids will see through eventually. If it’s not me showing that the road isn’t universally dangerous, it’ll be an adult running across the street to borrow a socket wrench or a cup of sugar. Or it’ll be a teen crossing the street because it’s shorter. Or any of a hundred different ways.

    I don’t want to throw this in your face Shamus, but this reminded me of your recent post on Gaming High. Especially your final comment after expressing your own personal anti-drug message: “And most importantly, it's the truth.”

    That’s what really bugs me about the no answer. It’s inherently dishonest. People have justified it with politeness, or out a desire to fit in. But that’s cowardly behaviour that does no one any good. If you were hanging out with some people at work and they began mocking a co-worker using racial slurs, would you have the same response? Would you just go along with it because you want to fit in, or because it would be rude to disagree with them? Or, even worse, would you participate, but then later when the racist co-workers weren’t around, apologize to the guy they were mocking. How much do you he/she will appreciate your apology?

    Honesty really is the best policy. Cross the street, explain to the kids how you keep yourself safe, and you’ll be doing those kids a favour. They will not always have a line on the lawn to keep them safe. Anyone who thinks so is foolish.

    I asked my Dad what his response would be, and he said yes immediately. He looked at it this way: those family’s probably eat raw meat, because a stove can burn you.

  127. OEP says:

    Well, I am approaching this strictly from the confines of this thought experiment.

    But in response to Seamus,

    If your teachings as a parent were so fragile as to be unable to withstand contact with strangers, then they aren’t exactly going to protect the children are they?

    This is why we should all teach our kids based on reason, not superstition.

    If you base it on reason, then when unexpected situations arise, your kids can deal with it. (a fire on your side of the block, and the only safe place is accross the street). If you trap your kids with superstition, you may deserve the consequences, but they sure as hell don’t.

    1. Shamus says:

      OEP and ngthagg: I am not arguing parenting. You seem to be taking the position that I think these parents are doing a great job. They are specifically NOT doing a good job, but in a subtle way.

      To assume that a “no” answer supports their parenting job is to miss the entire point.

      You’re now advocating crossing the road not for the ball, but specifically to counter the bad parenting. That’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

  128. Caffiene says:

    No. Not on your life.

    1: Kids will copy, and there is some responsibility for that.

    2: Yes, the parents should be teaching them how to do it safely.
    And there is nothing in the situation description that says that they arent!
    To assume that the parents arent teaching the children, that I know better, and that I am better equipped to teach the children than their own parents, is arrogant in the extreme. For all we know, the rule is in place for extra safety *while* the children are being taught how to cross safely. Its not even detailed in the description how developed these children are – some of these could be 3 year olds who barely understand why a car is dangerous, let alone fully grasp the process of safely crossing the road and being aware of all possible dangers.

    To assume the children arent learning, that we can teach them better, and that we have no responsibility if something happens to them, thats just… wrong.

  129. Face says:

    I wouldn’t get the ball because I think it’s important to honor the local custom….and because the setup seems a bit creepy and..well….a setup.

  130. Luke Maciak says:

    Btw, I don’t claim I would be better equipped to teach these kinds about dangers of crossing the street than their parents. I was more concerned about the “next kid” that comes along and tries to cross the street.

    My reasoning was this: I know how to teach them, and I care enough to keep an eye on them and make sure they don’t get hurt. The next guy who comes here may not care and they will get hurt. The situation is like a ticking time bomb – and I can potentially diffuse it, or look the other way and wait for it to blow up. The problem is that if you do it wrong it will blow up in your face.

    Not getting the ball is the safe choice. No matter what happens you are not responsible.

    I don’t know – maybe I’m framing this problem wrong. I’m sort of looking at it as a broader social problem. Something among the lines of:

    You encounter a system that is obviously and dangerously flawed. You are in the position to bring about social change by shaking things up – but it is dangerous, and it may backfire and you may put innocent people in danger. Do you take the risk and try to fix the system hoping you can prevent anyone from getting hurt in the process or do you maintain status quo, sit back and watch it implode on itself.

    If we make it about parenting then it the problem changes subtly. As an adult, I’d hate to directly challenge another parents authority. I do see a problem with doing this.

    In that situation, perhaps there is a better way – invoke the higher power and talk to your parents who then can talk to other parents and etc…

    Still, I’d have this nagging feeling that I could fix this – that I should fix this. That perhaps I’m supposed to fix it.

    Also, I grew up in a big city – we crossed big dangerous streets all the time. In fact, one of my usual daily routes involved me and my friends running across a dangerous 3 line street, get to the island which contained tram lines. Then you had to cross a tram line, climb over a fence that divides it from another tram line, cross that then run across another 3 line street. We did that daily, and not in a designated crossing spot either. No one ever got hurt.

    Also we used to put small change on these tram tracks so they get flattened and look all cool. So I guess I’m probably underestimating the danger this street poses here.

  131. Octal says:

    I wouldn’t go across the street right there to get the ball. I mean, okay, my parents have taught me “how to cross roads safely”, but I’m thinking that they did it with smaller, less busy streets. You specified a busy four-lane highway here–I doubt that that’s what my parents had in mind when they taught me how to safely cross, probably, a suburban street with a 30 mph speed limit or something like that. So, just because they’re okay with me crossing some roads, and crossing the highway isn’t exactly instant death, it doesn’t follow that they’d be okay with this even if they haven’t forbidden it specifically (because, one can assume, they think I would know better). It occurs to me that the kid might be thinking “Hey, I know how to cross roads, I can do this” when really it isn’t as safe as they think it is.

    Also, if it’s a busy highway, then it probably exceeds my personal risk tolerance (based on how fast people go on the road, whether there are decent breaks in traffic, whether there’s a meridian, and how far down the road I can see). Just to go get a ball, it’s probably not going to be worth it unless it’s a fairly safe street. (If on the other hand there were someone on the other side who was hurt and I could help them if I crossed over, then yeah, if I thought there was a pretty good chance I could make it over without getting hit.)

    Plus–I do think it’s potentially damaging for the other kids to just fear the road because they’ve been told to, but if I were going to take on the responsibility of showing them how to cross roads I sure as hell wouldn’t be doing it with a highway. Start small, yes?

    So, what I’d do, in order of which I’d try first:
    *Yell across for someone on the other side to please toss it back (or call the other house)
    *Go down to where there’s a crosswalk or overpass or something that will let me cross with much less risk (if other kids emulate that, well, that’s not such a problem, is it?)
    *Ask an adult to drive over and get it back
    *Give the ball up as lost

    I was going to put “ask one of my parents to escort me across, which shows that the road can be crossed safely but doesn’t encourage other kids to try it on their own” on there somewhere but I guess that depends on how dangerous the road really is.

  132. Tyche says:

    Easy answer. I voted yes.

    …a vaguely similar situation came up when I was younger, actually. I was 13 or so, and had participated in what was basically a camp/summer school session at a college in California. As I was from Seattle, I had to fly down: the total number of participants from Seattle was approximately 7.

    I have relatives in Asia and New England, and by that time was quite familiar with the interior of airports. My parents had flown down to California with me, but on the return trip had elected to trust me with navigating the interior of LAX by myself (we had a shuttle from the college to the airport, so it wasn’t as though I had to somehow manage that part by myself.)

    My peers weren’t so trusted. Every single one of them had been signed up for the program in which a stewardess ushered them from Plane A and Plane B and they were watched over every second up until the point the plane departed. I had a choice. I could either go with them and sit with them as one of the group, or I could exercise the freedom allotted me and take my time arriving at Plane B. It was a rather long layover.

    …I exercised my freedom. If one of them were to break away from the stewardess (somehow) and accompany me through LAX, yes, I would feel obligated to keep an eye on them. Otherwise…it’s true. One of them might have went on a later trip, gotten lost in an airport, and got killed. But would that really be my responsibility? I don’t think so. Other people might differ.

  133. Skyy says:

    I voted yes.

    It’s my ball, and the rules don’t apply to me. I’m not responsible for the other parents’ failings in teaching their children proper road safety. As the post reads, “You could tell them not to do as you do, but you're a smart kid and you know that telling them not to do something you are doing is tantamount to a dare.” Eventually, every kid disobeys a parent and does something that was forbidden; therefore, if I happen to precipitate these kids disobeying their parents sooner, that will only amount to bringing about what was inevitable already. Certainly, I would mention it to my parents, and suggest that they talk to the other kids’ parents about it, but I would not restrict my own behavior (or, if we were to extrapolate this scenario a bit, freedoms) to preserve the illogical taboos of others, particularly when those taboos could be harmful in the long run.

    I say this as the disgruntled member of a neighborhood full of children with complete disregard for road safety. I’m in the suburbs, every house has a big beautiful green front yard, yet whenever I’m driving down the street there are children playing in the middle of it, and they don’t ever move when a car comes. Yeah, the problem would be “fixed” if they were all petrified of the road, but they still wouldn’t know proper road safety, they’d just be avoiding the problem of what to do around streets. Both behaviors are dangerous, for different reasons.

  134. Bret says:

    I said yes. Partially because, sadly, I am a belligerent snot, and would have been more of a belligerent snot if I had to live through elementary school, but also because it is a bloody stupid rule.

    I mean, Jesus threw a boatload of local customs into the tubes, including ones that had decent reasons. The rule is inherently wrong. Not hugely wrong or anything, but it basically is ruling by fear, and several very good Chesterton Father Browns have pointed out just how messed up that is.

    Of course, I’ll take extreme precautions before crossing. I have responsibilities for others and all that.

  135. Maldeus says:

    I said yes. My initial reasoning was because it was my ball, according to the setup it had a certain degree of value and thus would be difficult to replace, and I’m not responsible for the stupidity of others.

    Now, I believe this to be a perfectly valid reason to choose yes, but upon reading further, I’ve realized that there are much better, less selfish reasons for choosing yes. The taboo is more dangerous than the road itself. Because it is such a clear offense against the safety AND freedom of the kids, and because it is so easy for me to destroy, I feel obliged to get rid of it. But that also means it’s my responsibility to replace it with something.

    If I replace it with my own teachings, then I’ve usurped the parents (the much older, wiser, and more experienced parents, regardless of their parenting flaws) authority over their children and taken it for my own. This certainly gives me plenty of power and thus it’s almost certainly what my kid self would have done, but I’m older now and more responsible.

    What about my parents? They are, presumably, as old and experienced as the other kids’ parents, except that mine are plainly better at their job. But that would cause a lot of conflict between families, and it would set my parents against every other family in the community. It would cause an immense rift, a struggle for power, possibly with one faction being led by people who didn’t want to get involved.

    The only responsible option, it seems to me, is to explain both sides of the street crossing issue and then tell them to decide for themselves if they think it’s wise. I’ll tell them that crossing the street without knowing how is just as dangerous as they’ve been led to believe, but that it’s perfectly safe if you’re informed and know what you’re doing. I’ll tell them that there’s probably nothing terribly exciting on the other side, just more houses exactly like these ones, so there’s no need to cross unless you have to, and it’s still a little bit dangerous even if you do know how, so they shouldn’t tempt fate. I’ll tell them that regardless of how safe or unsafe it is, they’ll still be breaking rules, and their parents are a lot more experienced and thus much more likely to be right most of the time. Then, I’ll leave the decision up to them.

    If I do this, I’ve usurped power from the parents (who were doing a dangerously poor job) and given it to the only other people who have the right to be responsible for the kids well-being; the kids themselves. In a perfect world, of course, the parents authority wouldn’t have to be usurped at all, but their authority has clearly proven to be dangerous. In order to keep all these kids breathing, I have to break the taboo and hope the kids’ own wisdom is enough to keep them safe.

  136. Varil says:

    I answered yes, with the stipulation that since you’re viewing the question, effectively, as an adult, that the underlying moral is also more universal than just kids. Essentially, would you give others ideas that, without proper wisdom, could be dangerous to them, given that you were also willing to try and teach them the proper wisdom? If someone is too impatient or too foolish to listen to your new advice, then they can best serve as an example.

    From the perspective of the question itself, as opposed to answering the question cast through the prism of my own perspective, I’d probably still answer yes. If you try and teach them the dangers and risks of crossing the road, and teach them “yes it can be done”, then you have effectively broadened their horizons. It’s a risk to the children, but a sheltered kid just has to learn these lessons later, and often the hard way. If you’re clever, you might also mention the event to your parents, and recommend they tell the other parents. Putting them on the alert against potential dare-devils and risk-takers, but also maybe encourage them to teach the proper rules themselves.

  137. Well first of all, I put “yes”, because that’s my answer given the problem as stated (given that I know I am able to cross).

    However, I would actually look at the situation a bit differently. How likely children are to follow parental instruction and how likely they are to doubt it, depends on both culture and what they’ve seen. But as far as I know, in any culture, if there is a motivation to do something and it is not just prohibitively dangerous, it’s guaranteed that people will try it. There’s no place where enough respect for authority is present that nobody ever breaks rules they deem unnecessary.
    So given that the reality here is that no child even sets foot within ten paces of the street, I would have to assume there is some danger at work other than the cars, because nothing but a disaster can cause children to behave themselves so well. If I reached this conclusion, I would, of course, stay the hell away.

  138. Octal says:

    Oh–and another thing. Sure, a lot of the answers (including mine!) address what you could do in that specific situation instead of the abstraction, but… the principle is sound even for the abstraction. Find a third option that doesn’t suck as much as the two most obvious ones.

    I’m reminded of your (Shamus’s) post about that railroady game where you had to go join the guard and kill a certain amount of something, or something like that, before they’d let you into a walled-off area that was quarantined. And there’s a screenshot. And then lower down there’s a screenshot with reasonable players’ suggestions all over it (“I toss a rock with a note over the wall”, “I use diplomacy”, “I sneak past the guards”, etc).

  139. ngthagg says:

    Shamus: fair enough. If the yes voters are to be held responsible for the injuries the children may sustain when copying us, then I feel it’s only fair that the no voters should be held responsible for their support, even implicit, of short-sighted rules. But if we leave out the long-term consequences, and focus on the ball:

    If I take two things as given: first, I want the ball back, and second, I am capable of doing so safely (without having to resort to indirect means like asking an adult to fetch the ball for me), then there must be some other reason for me not to get the ball. I have the means and the motive. If I’m going to choose to not retrieve the ball, I need to have a reason that overrides these means and motives. For you, it seems, politeness is just such a reason. For Mari, fitting in was a reason. But I don’t give much value to either of those.

    I do value politeness, and I do want to fit in with friends, but only so far as I can be polite and fit in without changing. I don’t like having to pretend ignorance, just to avoid offending someone or to get along (although, to be honest, I do both more than I like). Pretending to be something I’m not reminds me far too much of junior high.

    Here’s a twist on the question that maybe some will find interesting: what if you are one of the other kids? You are playing with the new kid on the block, and your red ball gets lost on the other side of the road. The new kid offers to go and fetch it, but you know your parents, who you love and trust, don’t want you or your friends to go near the road. Would you want the kid to fetch the ball? Would you actively oppose him (ie, we won’t play with you if you go near the road)? Or would you not influence him one way or the other?

  140. Terrible says:

    I was finally able to implant my adult mind in my kid self. And, in fact, it changed my vote.

    I would have left it, but then gone to bug the kid’s parent(s) to go it. Each and every time.

    Eventually, I think, the parents would get tired of choking on their own rule and either…

    1) change the rule, teaching the kids to cross safely so they can get the ball themselves (after all, they won’t be kids following blindly whatever rules the parents lay down).

    2) build a high fence to keep the ball (and kids) inside.

    3) forbid the playing of kickball near the highway altogether (which I’m sure the motorists would appreciate as well), in which case I would try to suggest a different place for us to play.

  141. Moridin says:

    I voted no. As a kid I would’ve gotten it, albeit with hesitation. As an adult…Firstly, I’d want to fit in at least for a little while until I wasn’t just “the new kid” anymore.

    Secondly, out of politeness: I may not agree with the way their parents are raising them, but it’s not immediately harmful and it’s not my responsibility to teach them otherwise(although I probably would, just not in that kind of “in your face” way)

    Thirdly, out of suspicion: Maybe, just maybe everything is not as it seems. Maybe there’s poison ivy(I probably wouldn’t recognize it as I didn’t grow up in America). Maybe there’s something else than the road itself that gives a very good reason not to cross it.

  142. CatPerson says:

    I voted no – for two reasons.
    1. Out of general respect for rules. This rule seems SO important that it just wouldn’t do for me to break it so casually. I would rather discuss it with kids, or, if they are reluctant, with adults, at first.
    2. I might not have the whole picture – meaning, again, if the rule is so strongly enforced in everyone’s minds, then there *might* be some additional reason for it that I’m not aware of. Think horrible monsters on the other side :)

  143. Yes, I’d get the ball back. If I was worried about breaking the taboo, I’d explain to the other kids that it was dangerous but if you did it the right way it was fairly safe.

    I wouldn’t be able to just sit back and do nothing, when I knew I could do this, even if it alienates me from the other kids. And I think people should work out what’s right and wrong for themselves, not by taboos that may have started out being sensible but grown to silly proportions.

    So, fetch the ball. Challenge the thinking.See if the rules really are sensible, if you don’t think they are.

    Wow, I’m more of an anarchist than I thought

  144. ima420r says:

    Doubtful that a kid is going to think about breaking taboos or the consequences of their actions, but as a grown up I would have to say I would go get an adult and have them either cross with me to get the ball or go and get the ball themselves.

  145. Andrew says:

    I admit that it’s tangential to the setup, but when you say 4-lane highway, I think of near-constant 70mph traffic, the sort of road that pedestrians generally aren’t expected to be on without necessity, and preferably big signs about a mile back warning drivers. I sure as heck wouldn’t try to negotiate four lanes of highway traffic even now, kids or no kids – maybe this makes me an inferior person.

  146. "John Lee" says:

    It’s a damned ball! It’s not going to kill you to leave it over there, and your comrades will understand. It’s not worth risking the health of others, however slim the chance of that injury may be.

  147. ClearWater says:

    I ran into this exact situation in real life. Except that the kids were my two-year-old, the highway was the fridge and crossing it was opening it. (Or maybe it was the drawer with adult stuff and opening it, or something else. There have been many situations.) Ok, so not exactly this situation. But my point is, once you’ve shown them something the genie is out of the bottle. It’s not that I don’t want my daughter to know how to open the fridge. I just don’t want her to know yet. She can learn when she’s mature enough not to open it for no reason and to close it afterwards. (Of course, she has already seen how it’s done by now.)

    I hope my point is clear: by crossing the street you’re showing the kids that it can be done and there is no unshowing it. Leave it to their parents to decide for each of them when they are mature enough to learn.

    Also: who builds houses, with lawns, right next to a four-lane highway?! Or maybe my idea of what constitutes a highway is different from yours.

  148. Dustin says:

    Taking responsibility for others’ injury aside, I think there is another element to consider. You are the new kid,new to the environment, which leads you to take the danger of the roadway at face value. Perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps there are other dangers present besides moving vehicles. Maybe the opposite side of the road is covered in landmines, or quicksand. I wouldn’t assume that just because I have crossed a road before, that I am more able/intelligent than all the other kids.

    I would not venture blindly into the unknown and risk injury for a ball.

  149. Kdansky says:

    Yes.

    They are responsible for their own actions. If you want to get yourself killed stupidly, go ahead. I will warn someone that they are doing something stupid, but I won’t stop them, nor will I compromise my own happyness or principles for that.

    Also, if the children actually knew WHY they should not go near the road, they would understand if/when to (not) cross it. Much better than an absolute rule.

    I loathe arbitrary, pointless rules. Pointless because not getting killed by a car is a good idea, but not going near a road is not. “Never do X” is rarely a good idea, you will find exception and good reasons to break it.

  150. Terrible says:

    @ self
    yikes, Terrible post.

    I meant I would bug the kid's parent(s) to go *get* it, and they won’t *always* be kids.

  151. Incognitia says:

    When I voted, I did so almost instinctively, giving the child’s answer – “My ball!” *runs*
    A football is amongst a young boy’s most treasured possessions, and we used to do all manner of things to go and retrieve one that had been kicked astray…climbing up a three storey building to get one on the roof, crawling along the covers of the (freezing, outdoors) school swimming pool – and yes, crossing the nearby road.
    [I am assuming that a ‘kickball’ is what I’d call a football]
    Considering it as I was originally supposed to, as an adult’s mind in a child’s body, it does become much more difficult. I still think that on balance I would go and get it.
    I was interested to read someone comparing it with Anthropology, and saying you shouldn’t interfere with local customs. However, you aren’t an anthropologist dropped in another land who’ll be leaving any minute. You’re a kid who lives here now yourself, and so it can be ethical to take actions that will change the community, because you are part of it yourself.
    Others have said you’d be challenging the authority of the parents of these children, but that isn’t so – because you aren’t an adult. You are perhaps encouraging them to challenge their own parents – because “Jimmy can, why can’t I?” – but that’s what children do anyway. The answer to that question could be quite illuminating.
    Finally, I would feel justified in doing so because YES, I would take on the task of trying to teach them about how to cross the road safely. I would emphasise that I was only allowed to because I knew how. I would use every trick and tactic my adult brain in a child’s body could come up with to get them to listen to me, including if necessary setting myself up as leader of the gang and forcing them to cross properly or be social outcasts (insta-heirarchy. They tend to form anyway in groups of children, and with an adult’s mind in a child’s body you’re going to end up either as leader or as the leader’s ideas man anyway).

    Those who are against interference will doubtless be horrified at my approach. I guess my only answer can be that because I do accept that I would be partially responsible if one of the other children gets hurt, I’m not going to be half-hearted about trying to prevent it. If it were possible to lead the other children to being able to cross the road safely by example and exhortation I would prefer that way, but since we’re told that won’t work I’m prepared to consider other methods.
    Saying No would be easier, but it just wouldn’t sit right with me.

    Edit: Whoo…Much longer than I expected.

  152. Strangeite says:

    “If the yes voters are to be held responsible for the injuries the children may sustain when copying us, then I feel it's only fair that the no voters should be held responsible for their support, even implicit, of short-sighted rules.”

    This is correct. However, in my opinion, the price of human life is greater than than the value of breaking this silly rule.

    This is not always the case, there are instances where the risk to human life is worth paying to overthrown tyranny. This situation is not one of those.

  153. Zock says:

    Yes, I would go get the ball. The assumptions given about what would happen if I go get it are false and I refuse to believe in them. If the question is based on the premise that the assumptions are true, then you’ve already made up your mind, and are not really asking me, are you?

    I assume the question is about would I break a rule which isn’t enforced, has not been explained to me, and which by my standards seems ridiculous, then yes, I would break that rule. If the rule is actually based on facts and not scare tactics then the other children should be smart enough to follow the rule whether or not I break it or not. Children aren’t stupid, they can think by themselves. If you don’t allow them, they will grow up stupid, and in my books that isn’t a good thing.

    What comes to parenting issues and undermining authority, I’d like to draw an analogy to a real life situation, which doesn’t have as serious consequences, but happens quite a lot. Where I live it’s common parenting to have your children have a ‘candy day’ (often Saturday). Parents don’t usually allow their children any candy during week, but buy them a small bag of sweets on this day. Often, when doing groceries, you’ll see children asking their parents to buy some candy to them just to hear the parents answer “No, it’s not a Saturday yet”. Would this stop you from getting candy from the shelf? What if you’ve already picked up some candy and the child has seen this. Would you put the candy back? Would you think the store keeper is at fault for keeping the candy visibly available during weekdays?

    I don’t think it’s your responsibility to enforce other peoples’ rules. If the rules are good they will prove themselves (and eventually become laws of the society). If not, people will break them anyways (and eventually even laws will be changed). If you want to raise your children as sheep, go right ahead, but don’t expect others to adhere to it.

  154. Monkeyboy says:

    Zock:

    Would a better analogy in this case be showing your disagreement with the rule by buying the child candy yourself?
    As a kid I would probably not do it, but would ask a parent to get it.

    As a parent, well you have to respect another person’s right to raise their own children. You respect their rules when the kids are your house and expect them to respect your rules when the kids are under their supervision.

    “To assume the children arent learning, that we can teach them better, and that we have no responsibility if something happens to them, thats just… wrong.”

    I always follow “You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.”

  155. Al Shiney says:

    I voted yes. Reason? One word … freewill.

  156. Lazlo says:

    OK, first, I know it’d be tough to extract these statistics, but it sure would be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between this poll answer and the theme the user has for the site. Are the people reading this with a black background really more likely to vote yes?

    Let me posit a clearly different but analogous situation: There exists a family with an Internet connection who have taught their daughter that terrible things will happen to her if she doesn’t wear a headscarf in public. Do you post pictures of your family (or someone else’s family, or scenes out of movies or games) where women are clearly not wearing headscarves in wanton disregard for what they have taught their daughter? I know my answer and, honestly, I think I know yours too.

    So, having established the two ends of the spectrum, the one in the middle I think would be: You live in a neighborhood where all the kids know how to cross the road safely. A new kid moves in next door. Before the issue comes up, he informs you all that he’s never been closer than 10 feet to a road before without having a parent at his side and, based on his parents instructions, he never will. Perhaps he expresses wonder that the grass seems trampled at places near the road, and wonders if that’s because parents walk there with all the neighborhood kids a lot, or if it’s maybe dogs doing the trampling. Someone kicks the ball across the road. The new kid says “Oh no! We lost the ball! Now we can’t play ball anymore!” Do you go across? If another kid starts to, do you ask him not to? If another kid goes across, do you think he’s being rude?

    In other words, is it a matter of subverting a parent’s authority, or a matter of community standards?

  157. Maddy says:

    I was going to add something, but Strangeite #157 beat me to it. The yes answers are saying on the one hand that they’re not responsible if someone dies, but on the other hand they’re deeply, urgently responsible for spreading the great “truth” about road safety immediately.

    Every decision involving safety must include a risk analysis, where you weigh the costs at stake. Here we have the value of a child’s life vs. the ball and the “truth.”

    The thing is that the “truth” isn’t a permanent secret, and the kids will surely learn more about road safety as they get older, with or without your help, and perhaps at an age when they’re better equipped to make good judgments. For example, my younger nieces and nephews know how to cross the street safely, and they even know the “rules” and the hazards of oncoming traffic, but that’s all forgotten the moment their ball rolls into the street. I’ve seen it myself. So for now, they’re forbidden to play in the front yard. (The back yard is near a busy 4-lane highway, but there’s a fence.)

    Doesn’t matter if some “smart” kid tries to teach them about safety. They already know safety. It doesn’t matter. They’re kids. Their judgment is poor.

    The scenario specifically describes a hyperactive kid who’s likely to get hurt no matter how hard you try to teach him to do it right. He may grow up to become a brilliant inventor someday, but right now he really needs to stay away from the road.

    The ball is cheap and easy to replace. The “truth” can (and certainly will) be handled at a more opportune time, by someone better qualified and more deserving of trust than the new kid. (Really, as a kid I would have been skeptical of any random new kid telling me anything.) But a kid getting run over is forever.

    Doesn’t matter whether you feel responsible for him or not. He’s still dead – so much for your safety lesson. The other kids are going to think of him every time they see that ball and they’re never going to trust you again, especially if you shrug and say “it wasn’t my fault – who wants to play ball?”

  158. RichVR says:

    There is a taboo strong enough to affect the growth of the grass (via the actions of the children) but no fence or actual physical barrier?

    I’d get my ball and hitch a ride out of that creepy town ASAP.

  159. Kevin says:

    I know my answer is yes because as a kid I’ve done it before. Not only would I go, but I’d drag as many of the other kids across with me as I could. I would think then (and think now) that it’s irresponsible parenting to mentally hobble your kid to the point where they can’t cross a street, especially if they’re old enough to be thinking the kind of thoughts the example described us as having. (Assuming everyone is the same age.) You cross a road, you watch for cars… duh. The messed up people in the example are the parents who have left their kids unable to cope should they ever end up in a position where they inadvertently and unavoidably find themselves in the middle of a street. What are they going to do then? Freeze and watch the oncoming traffic?

    (I may have so authority issues.)

  160. smIsle says:

    I’m thinking that in order to create such a strong taboo, some kid must have actually died or gotten seriously injured crossing that highway. Something like that wouldn’t need much parental effort to keep alive, at least not for a while.

    Either that, or it’s a creepy town where, if you DID cross the road, the other parents would turn into aliens, zombies or something like that and eat your parent’s brains and terrorize you and the other kids until you were old enough to get turned into one of them.

    But to answer the question, in the real world, as a kid, I probably wouldn’t get the ball – but as an adult, I think I would… if only to try and fix some bad parenting (and, I would know – that’s how my mom took care of dangerous things).

  161. Ysabel says:

    @Shamus: I'm coming at this the other way: If someone thought I was being a bad parent or disagreed with how I was raising my kids, would I want them to overthrow my teachings because they think they know better?

    Absolutely. I actively want my children to be exposed to other points of view, and to have the intellectual and emotional tools necessary to decide for themselves what works for them. And hopefully to come discuss such things with me, knowing that I will not decide for them nor demand anything, just help them to understand and compare.

    And, personally, I think that people who try to brainwash their children by avoiding ever exposing them to other ideas are, at the very least, toeing the line of abuse. I think that’s a horrific thing to do to another person.

  162. Lochiel says:

    I can’t claim to have read all the comments, but I’ve read a significant number of them.

    What I find interesting is that if you filter out the people who try to avoid the issue by using other means to get the ball back, (asking an adult, doing it later, etc. etc.) the commenters I read tend to fall into 2 groups. “No, because I’d become responsible for the actions of the other children”, and “No, because I’m not responsible for the actions of the other children”

    I believe this reflex’s the crux of the issue, “Are we responsible for the actions of others?” and as I am not responsible for anyone’s actions beside my own I choose “Yes”.

    “But the consequences of your actions!” cry the horde! The only consequence that is guaranteed to happen is that I will get my ball back. It is possible that upon seeing me cross the street every child there will rush to be the first under the wheels of the passing Mac Truck. It is possible that upon breaking the taboo the children will shun me for eternity. But we don’t know what will happen, regardless of how smart we tell ourselves we are. We just don’t have enough information.

  163. glassdirigible says:

    @Mad Flavius: Though I don’t consider the Bible highly, as you say, quoting a relevant and insightful passage from a work (regardless of how common or uncommon they may be) is always a good thing.

    I voted yes. Getting a parent and slowly breaking them into knowing how to cross a road (as Purple Library Guy said) is a far better way than darting across the road, but wasn’t presented as an option. When forced to choose between the black and white responses it’s hard for me to realistically believe that I would limit my freedoms because someone else was raised in an unreasonable fashion.

    Bad parenting, such as not educating children how to safely cross a road, will eventually hit a snag when outside forces shatter a child’s innocent belief that everything an authority figure says is true.

  164. Stickle says:

    Putting aside the possible death factor, I can’t see crossing the road going down well at all for me the kid. Yes, a few kids might want to try crossing the road if they see me do it, but others will be horrified that we broke the taboo. If I cross, the kids will probably be divided for years to come, between the ‘rule-breakers’ and the ‘mama’s boys’. Will starting this make me, the new kid, popular? Shunned by one half and looked up to by the other? If I leave the ball there, I gain normal acceptance from all.
    I guess it depends on whether you were a leader or a follower as a kid. Did you like showing off? or blending in?

  165. Zock says:

    Monkeyboy, I think you missed my point. The point was that if you set rules and limitations in your personal life you should not expect other people to follow them in their personal lives.

    With the candy analogy: I wouldn’t let a rule set by parents to their kids to prevent me from buying candy to myself. It’s not my responsibility to explain or enforce that rule. If my actions, or actions of any other 3rd party, causes the kid to question the rule, it’s up to the parents to explain the kid why that rule is in place.

    And no, I wouldn’t buy candy to that kid as it’s not my place to do so. I wouldn’t ask the parents to buy the candy either for the same reason. And I wouldn’t show up on the kids house bringing candy to the kid without the parents’ permission. If the kid asked me why I’m buying candy even when it’s not Saturday I’d probably make up a white lie and tell her I’m buying it for Saturday. And if the parents would tell me that I shouldn’t buy the candy in front of their kid as they don’t allow their kid to get any either, I’d probably told them that in that case they probably should’ve left the kid home when they came shopping.

    It’s okay to set rules within your domain, but don’t try to force them to others outside your domain. If you think the rule is a good one, you can, and should try to talk others to support it, but do not outright assume they would follow it just because you think it’s a good idea.

  166. Mistwraithe says:

    Still astounded at the yes answers. For example a typical one, #168:

    I would [not] limit my freedoms because someone else was raised in an unreasonable fashion.

    In the context of this scenario that answer is saying you would rather willfully cause the likely death or maiming of a child because you can’t bear to give up your freedom to recover a $5 ball.

    You can’t say that you don’t believe any of the children will get hurt. The scenario OPENLY SAYS that it is highly likely the children will copy you and that you can’t teach them effectively or quickly enough to prevent likely injury or death.

    You can’t just rewrite the scenario to suit the answer you want to give. If you do you are no longer answering the same question as everyone else and your answer therefore belongs in a different poll. The same goes for those answering with their CHILD brain instead of their adult brain, they are not answering the scenario as posed.

    I can’t help but wonder whether the large number of yes answers is because presumably the bulk of the answers are Americans (ie live in the USA). Is your ‘every man for themselves’ mentality so ingrained that you are unwilling to impose even the slightest self control over your actions in order to save the lives of others children?

    Do the yes voters really lack any sort of concept of a greater good and of taking responsiblity for your own actions beyond self satisfaction?

    I am genuinely curious. I’ve asked a few people where I live and received a no answer without hesitation. One possible conclusion is that this is because I live in New Zealand rather than the US.

  167. Felblood says:

    Within the limits of the scenario, I’d have to say no, but the scenario isn’t complete, by any means.

    For this to be useful as a DnD scenario, you have to consider the numerous third options, which range from asking a grown-up to retrieve the ball, to sneaking out at night to get the ball.

    We are told to approach the question in a grown-up way, but the possible answers polled for are childishly simplistic.

    You study, sir, is a box of crackerjacks.

  168. Lanthanide says:

    @Mistwraithe #171):

    I live in New Zealand and I said Yes. See post #98.

  169. Tacoma says:

    I retrieve the ball.

    I reserve the ability to do so later when the kids aren’t around, noting that when they see me with the ball they’ll know I went across anyway.

    My reasoning is that if I have no authority over them, if they have given me no authority, I have no responsibiity to keep them safe. Oh, I’ll tell them that I know how to cross the street safely and that they’ll probably get hit by a car if they do it. But if they insist on going across anyway it’s their deal. I’m not forcing them to. It would be their own egos telling them to as you described.

    If one kid at school starts doing meth is it his fault when others go buy their own and start doingit too? If one monkey climbs the dangerous mountain to get the delicious fruit, is it his fault when the other monkeys go?

    I just don’t feel willing to take on that responsibility to keep everyone else safe. Maybe certain people. The few I’m able to show how to do it right. Screw the rest of them. Even if I’m superior to them (perhaps not so likely) they’re in this world like everyone else and must find their own ways through it.

    Now if the group had decided that I was some kind of special person, leader, shaman, whatever, and there remained a taboo even though I had performed the feat, there wouldn’t be an ethical problem at all. My actions won’t encourage them because I’m outside their normal expectations for the taboo.

    But if they had decided that I was a caretaker (and I agreed) then I’d consider how my actions would influence their decision-making.

    But as described you have someone who is free of some rigid thinking that keeps these other people stupid and safe. That gives me more freedom but exposes me to more danger. I am different from them in this example but they can’t see that. It’s more like making sure your dog is tied down so it won’t follow you to school.

  170. Tacoma says:

    One more point.

    I go to a nearby kid’s parent and tell him I’m going to get my ball. I get him to come out and watch me cross the street. And when I come back I point to his kid and tell him this.

    Hyper boy and all the rest of these kids are probably going to try to cross the street. You are the parent of this kid. It is your job to teach him what he needs to know in life. If you instead teach him to fear the unknown he will have no life to speak of. But right now I have broken this specific fear and you have to deal with it now. Like you should have dealt with it long ago. Go to the other parents. Have them all come out here and teach their kids how to survive this road. If a kid dies tomorrow on that road it is the fault of his parent. First for holding him captive with fear and second for not responding to the crisis of him throwing that fear off. You aren’t responsible in the same way the driver that hits him will be, but you will feel like it. And every day your failure will echo through your mind when you wake to a quiet house.

  171. Michael Miller says:

    “I can't help but wonder whether the large number of yes answers is because presumably the bulk of the answers are Americans (ie live in the USA). Is your “˜every man for themselves' mentality so ingrained that you are unwilling to impose even the slightest self control over your actions in order to save the lives of others children?”

    Oh for god’s sake – you could make either answer fit any stereotype. Maybe more people are voting ‘yes’ because that was in the lead in the beginning and they’re following the majority blindly :P

  172. Mistwraithe says:

    Hi Lanthanide, thanks for pointing your answer out – good to see a fellow kiwi on here!

    Your answer is that you will get the ball but focus heavily on it being a learning experience, taking other kids with you and putting new rules in place. Using my adult brain I’m not sure I would be willing to take that risk with other peoples kids (without their input anyway) but I can see the logic in what you are saying and understand why it led you to choose yes.

    Whereas I struggle to understand the “I’ll do it because I want to and no one should be able to stop me, who cares whether children get hurt or killed as a directly forseeable result” answer.

    It is worth pointing out that I think Maddy #162 did an excellent job of breaking down the logic the way I see it.

    Tacoma: “If one kid at school starts doing meth is it his fault when others go buy their own and start doingit too?”

    It isn’t entirely the one kid’s fault BUT it is self evident that the one kid would be a contributing factor and the others were less likely to start doing meth until the example was presented to them. As an adult would YOU deliberately send a kid that you controlled into a clean school and start doing meth? If you as an adult did that (maybe you have a robot kid you control) then YES you would be responsible for the consequences on the other kids, just like the Yes vote in Shamus’s scenario (IMO).

    Michael Miller: My suggestion that the answers were influenced by culture was provocative, I’ll give you that! I am curious though and being provocative seemed like a good way to elicit some replies ;-).

    However I do honestly think it could be a factor in the replies.

  173. Blackbird71 says:

    Interesting exercise. Given the context, constraints, and available options of the situation as presented, I voted “yes.” This is assuming I udnerstand the situation correctly and the following stipulations are true:

    1. By crossing the road, I am breaking no rule, instruction, or guideline given to me by one with authority over me. I.e., my parents have not given me a rule not to cross the street, nor have they implied it, but rather I am specifically allowed to do so.

    2. My knowledge and ability, as well as the situation at hand, are such that I am capable of crossing the road in reasonable safety. I.e., there is good enough visibility distance of coming traffic, cars are infrequent enough/gaps are large enough to cross with enough of a safety margin, etc.

    Here’s why: for me, it comes down to an issue of obedience. To obey or disobey is a personal and individual choice, the consequences of which you alone are responsible for. Others may influence your decision, but the rules are laid out and in the end it is your choice and no one can make it for you. Consequently, if I acted within the rules, and another child chose to break his rules, then he is in fact the one responsible for his choice and the resulting consequences.

    Some have brought up the “brother’s keeper” aspect, and that is a principle I agree with wholeheartedly. However, it is also limited; consider it as a parent with a grown child. You’ve taught your child the best you could their whole life, but in the end you have to let them make their own decisions, even if it is sometimes painful to stand back and watch the results. You do the best you can to look out for them, but in the end the person you can’t protect them from is themselves.

    Because of this, I would definetely not do as others have suggested, and try to teach the kids how to cross the road, as that would be directly encouraging them to break the rules they have been given. I am not in a position of authority to judge the validity of the rule, nor can I arbitrarily decide it is worthless and should be ignored; I can only abide by the fact that in this case, the rule does not apply to myself. And so I would do my best to explain to the other kids that crossing the street is something I am allowed to do, and I know how to do, but that they should not disobey their parents. After I have done all I can to make the distinction clear, if some kid chooses to be rebelious and break the rule, the responsibility for that action is his.

    I think it is safe to say that growing up, we all had friends and knew other kids whose parents gave them rules different than our own. When we’d go visit their homes, we’d folow their rules out of coutesy and respect. However, outside their homes, their rules had no authority over us, and we were nto required to follow them. When we were on neutral ground, such as outside, or at school, we each brought our own different rules with us. Generally, we would respect each others rules and allow each other to follow our own rules in peace.

    For example, this one is from a slightly older perspective, but the idea works: when I was in high school, I loved hanging out with my friends in the evenings. Some had curfews and had to be home at certain times. The rest would do what they could to make sure their friends made their curfew, partly because they cared about their friends and didn’t want them to get in trouble, and partly because they enjoyed their friends’ company, and didn’t want them to not be able to join in the next time. Now, helping those with curfews keep their rules didn’t prevent those without curfews from staying out later and having fun: one friend’s rules weren’t imposed on others, but we still helped each other to keep individual rules.

    I would look at the red ball excercise the same way: I am not bound by the rules that do not govern me, but at the same time I have a responsibility to help the kids who are governed by the rule to keep it.

    Of course, that isn’t to say that there won’t be the occasional irresponsible kid who tries to get others to break their rules. But this kind of behavior actually does make him partly responsible for what happens to those who follow his advice. I find it quite contradictory that some argue that they can show the other kids how to break the rule, and then still believe that doing so somehow absolves them of responsibility for what may happen to the kids. Can you honestly say that if you show a kid how to cross the street, when he has been forbidden from doing so, and then while doing his best to follow your example he is hit and killed, you have no culpability in his death? You have taught him to disobey a rule put in place for his safety. You may believe the rule to be excessive, unnecessary, or even ridiculous, but the fact is that you do not have the authority to make that judgement call on behalf of the other kid. Deciding rules for a child is the child’s parents’ authority, and the results of those rules is their responsibility, just as the results of breaking the rules is the child’s. When you assume the parent’s authority by changing the rules for the kid, you also assume their responsibility for the outcome.

    Once again, I’ve been a bit long winded, but the bottom line is this: I can only live by the rules I’ve been given, and will not be restrained by rules that have no authority over me. By the same token, I would do my best to persuade others to follow the rules they have been given with authority, regardless of how I personally feel about those rules or if I can fully understand the purpose. I don’t have the authority to change those rules, and I may not have the right perspective or sufficient knowledge of the situation to decide whether the rule is truly appropriate or not.

  174. Blackbird71 says:

    @Ysabel #166: …I will not decide for them nor demand anything…

    Seriously? No decisions at all? So what you’re saying is that you would abdicate your parental responsibility to set boundaries for a child too young to set their own? I’ve seen this attitude in parenting far too often, and it always ends in disaster.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m a firm believer in teaching children to be able to make their own decisions. But that does not mean that they get to decide everything for themselves. The ability to reason and make good decisions comes with age, experience, and maturity. A child of any given age will have limited judgement and ability, in that they can make some decisions on their own, and will need others made for them. Decisions made on their own give the experience of learning how to do so, and decisions that are made for them are done for their own safety, well-being, and responsible development. As a child grows older, the decisions they can make on their own increases, and those made for them should decrease.

    If a parent refuses to make any decisions for their child, and gives all that responsibility over to the child, what happens? I don’t care how well you explain nutritional value to a three-year old, give him the chance and he’ll choose ice cream and candy over vegetables any day. The fact is that the consequences of such decisions are beyond the comprehension of a child at that age, and they lack the capacity to reason out the best course of action. And when a child grows up without decisions and boundaries, they tend to live their life as such, having a disregard for the consequences of their choices on themselves and others, which often gets them into trouble as adults and causes problems for those around them.

    Raising a child without ever making any decisions for them is at least as bad as making every decision for them. As with all things, it requires a balance. People complain that there is a growing level of irresponsible and inconsiderate behavior in the world, well these types of attitudes are the direct cause: People having children and refusing to actually be parents by making the decisions and setting the rules for kids when they’re young so they grow up without any sense of responsibility or consequence.

  175. brashieel says:

    I voted no. I wouldn’t go get it. Yes, the rule is somewhat arbitrary and the issue isn’t being handled that well.

    But the issue arises that this rule, while flawed, is fulfilling its goal. It keeps kids from exposing themselves to a danger they aren’t properly equipped to comprehend or respond to. By overturning this rule I’d be eliminating a functioning system. Without the ability to create another system (which I don’t have the ability to do) I’d just be creating anarchy. In all likelihood there would be damage done as a result.

    So I’d get a parent to retrieve the ball. Or just write it off if I had to.

  176. Galenloke says:

    I’m on board with the group that said ‘wait till later’ but… 180 comments?! Apparently the population of nerds people like me that read this are more philosophically inclined than I thought.

  177. RibbitRibbit says:

    Of course NO! Geez!

    Don’t you see that the road is CURSED?

    Doesn’t ANYONE read Stephen King anymore?

    *sigh*

  178. James Pony says:

    It is better to die for the ball than live for parents who are mortally afraid of reality.

    I don’t know about you lot, but I was told and taught things as they were, not controlled with religion and/or secret cult mumbo jumbo threats.
    And I don’t remember the kids around me having any trouble learning these things either. Obeying was ofcourse a different matter, but they knew damn well what they were doing.

  179. Eric the baker says:

    I say yes.

    I do feel that the question as laid out is flawed. For instance, it’s stated that I know how the other kids will react to me crossing the street. As a child, I would not have been aware of that. I can choose to answer with either the knowledge, emotional capacity, empathy, etc. that I’ve developed over the years; or I can answer as I would have as a child, without those insights. You can’t really ask me to have both. To formulate an answer as an adult, I must add in other qualifications and quantifiers, or I must choose to ignore certain stated premises of the scenario.

    In my “yes” answer, I choose to ignore the insight into the thoughts and future actions of my playmates. I have after all just met them. I have extremely limited capacity to predict their potential replies to any of my actions. Several aspects of their behaviour have already been outside of my normal experience. It’s reasonable to think that I can not predict how they will behave after I cross the street.

  180. Strangeite says:

    I am American. All of my friends and family that I have posed the question to are American.

    100% voted No.

  181. K9ine says:

    I’m surprised that all of you are picking one side or the other and viciously attacking the others decision as though that helps you defend your own. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sides.

    to the no crowd- by doing nothing you can avoid leading the kids to any immediate harm yes, but you leave the taboo open for others to smash in the future without teaching the kids the safe way to cross the highway.

    To the yes crowd- By getting the ball you would teach the others the safe way to cross and give them the logical formula for making choices (assuming the parents of those kids are as illogical as all of you seem to argue, what if the trust their kids to follow the rules and are in the process of teaching them how to think as the grow. Maybe they think obedience and trust in them is more valuable at that age than learning all of the practical aspects of the world)? And if you did get the ball there almost certainly be more kids crossing the highway. I would look especially at the hyper active kid before making my choice, having been one myself and not especially bright.

    I think we need to recognize that we are not as adept at making the right choices as we think, and be humble to the other side rather than cutting them down.

  182. Jeysie says:

    I voted yes.

    As a kid, I likely would have thought the other kids were idiots for following such a blind and uninformed rule, crossed and gotten my ball, and would have been more than happy to teach the other kids the road-crossing skills their parents neglected.

    If one of the kids got killed because he disobeyed my teachings and was reckless, I’d feel generally bad, but I wouldn’t feel guilty – it’d be the kid’s own fault that he didn’t follow my instructions and cross the road properly.

    As an adult, I know there’s lots of taboos that I used to follow that I now realize were dumb and I should have broken. (For instance, I really wish that I’d been more proactive about walking out of the room whenever my entire class was made to stay late because of the actions of only a few kids that weren’t me. Or complained more about me getting punished even though it was the other kids’ fault that they wouldn’t leave me alone and kept beating me up without me having started it. Etc.) So much stupid crap I put up with rule-wise that actually did me no good whatsoever and even actively harmed me on some occasions.

    And I also think that people should follow rules out of knowledge and free choice, not out of ignorance.

  183. Mistwraithe says:

    Agreed K9ine. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both answers – it wouldn’t be a very interesting question if there weren’t.

    To me they aren’t particularly balanced though. The disadvantages of the Yes answer are fairly well spelled out. There is at least one kid who is likely to be amongst the first to try to follow your lead and it seems likely that he will be hurt or killed. The scenario is pretty clear about this.

    Whereas the disadvantages of the No answer are very nebulous and speculative (apart from of course the loss of the Red Ball which should be so insignificant to an adult mind when weighed against the life of a child as to be irrelevent).

    Maybe the kids will be somehow mentally scarred for live if you don’t take this opportunity to explain why the road is taboo. On the other hand it is at least equally plausible that they would grow up just fine and their combined parents just don’t think they are ready for crossing a fast four lane highway yet (not unresonable) and are happy to go with the current taboo because it works. The scenario doesn’t spell out the likely long term mental outcome either way so it is pure speculation.

    So, highly likely chance of injury or death to a child, vs potential but uncertain long term mental damage from not understanding WHY a four lane highway is dangerous.

    I don’t pretend to know which is definitely the right choice but reviewing the information provided in the scenario it seems pretty clear to me which has the best odds of being the right choice.

    FWIW I’m convinced now that a good proportion of the Yes votes refused to accept the stated facts (eg Eric #184, but there are many more who say similar things) in which case the whole poll result is pretty screwed by bad data anyway.

  184. froogger says:

    Of course not, not myself I wouldn’t. Rule by fear is far more effective than by principle. What I’d do is let the kid who kicked it, and the one who should’ve caught it know that I’m disappointed in them, that I really loved that ball. Then I’d use this later to privately persuade the strongest of them to get the ball back for me. Of course, if he succeeds I’ll let the others know he broke the taboo and have him ostrachised. If he gets run over, no problem, either way I’ll take his place and run the little crew as I please.

    What was the problem again?

    (edit: damn that wavatar, I’m trying to be evil to the bone here!)

  185. Steve C says:

    @Shamus (#114):If someone thought I was being a bad parent or disagreed with how I was raising my kids, would I want them to overthrow my teachings because they think they know better?

    That doesn’t make you a bad parent for not wanting a 3rd party to overthrow your teachings to your child. I would guess that desire is common to all parents.

    It does make you a bad parent for expecting your teachings not to be challenged by life. This isn’t an instance of someone taking your kid aside and teaching them something you disagree with. While that is a completely different scenario, it also something a good parent should expect. This is someone following their own convictions, and a child witnessing it. That should be expected.

    For 10 years I lived within 10 mins of a traditional Amish community. It wasn’t a closed community and Amish parents can’t keep their children segregated from society anyway. Exposure to foreign values of what is allowed/not allowed has to be expected. The community existed for generations so it’s evident that values of what is and what is not allowed can be impressed from parent to child with exposure to an opposing set of values.

    I strongly doubt the Amish community existed for that long by creating irrational fears of the outside world into Amish children. I don’t know that for sure as I never grabbed an Amish child and got them to explain their belief system to me, nor have I tried to overthrow said beliefs beyond driving past a horse and buggy with my modern car. Additionally I have cooked and fed pork to a Jew. In both cases I do not view it as a challenge of that person’s belief system, just another form of exposure to life.

  186. Andrew says:

    No, there might be unknown reasons this road is dangerous.

  187. there might be unknown reasons this road is dangerous.

    That was my thought, children just don’t keep those kind of margins without a great deal of reinforcement.

  188. DaveMc says:

    That’s a surprisingly interesting question! I voted “Yes” initially, on a sort of “Hell if anyone is going to stop me from getting my ball, stupid rules or no” basis (see the Captain Kirk Interpretation of the Prime Directive: “Don’t interfere with alien cultures unless they are particularly stupid or irritating”). However, the “No” camp makes some very good points.

    I’d like to change my vote to “Hmm”.

  189. Sean Riley says:

    A solid yes. Binks got the same reasoning as me instantly.

    “The idea that irrational fear of something can protect you from it is the exact same problem which leads to security through obscurity, the horribly ineffective anti-drug programs (drugs will make your eyeballs explode!) and other problems with our modern society. These hypothetical parents aren't helping their kids by making them irrationally afraid of roads, they're hurting them in the long term.”

  190. Juni says:

    Breaking the rule, and allowing other kids to follow you at danger to themselves is one way of looking at it.

    But this system is just too unstable. We all know that some day, they’re going to wind up needing to cross a road, or in a situation with cars. If they know what they need to do, they’ll be fine. If they’re afraid of something they don’t need to be afraid of, they’ll freeze up. NOT getting the ball puts them in more danger.

    You don’t stay away from a self-defense class to stop yourself from getting mugged.

    Not only would I cross and get the ball, I would advertise it for a week in advance. “There’s nothing to be afraid of, it’s just a road!”

    I would teach the others to cross if I had to, or get them to ask their parents: That way they would, ultimately, be safer.

    The biggest problem as posed is the possibility: If one of them crosses the road and dies. I suppose I have more faith in people, even children, that they are clever enough to not run out on the road like a lemming and get themselves killed. I think it’s sad that the parents in this case don’t have a similar faith… and neither do half of people in the poll.

  191. MelTorefas says:

    Waaahahaha… man that was interesting read. I read at least 90% of each one of the comments. Fascinating look at human psychology on many levels. I have almost no idea what do with all of it, but yes… definitely enjoyed the reading.

    Now, for my answer? I would not get the ball. For three (complicated) reasons.

    First and foremost, how can I be so arrogant as to assume that I know better than everyone else in this scenario? I dont KNOW that the parents are bad parents who put that rule there to “rule their kids by fear.” I don’t know that those parents didn’t put that rule there for a damn good reason. Or even just to keep their kids alive while they teach them, though given the kids’ nigh-fanatical observance of the rule I would think there was more to it than that. But I don’t KNOW. In point of fact, as a newcomer here, I know absolutely nothing about what’s going on. Several people made this point, and it really rings true to me. I don’t think it advisable to make the kind of assumptions a lot of the posters here have made.

    Second, even if I KNEW the rule was bad and made by bad parents, destroying the rule in this fashion seems to me to be a very bad option. I finally saw someone say two of the things I had been thinking… if you take over the parental power of teaching the children, you are taking their responsibility as well. So yes, then you ARE directly responsible if a child dies because of your instructions; and also, if you claim to be completely lacking in responsibility for what happens to them, there’s no way you can justify yourself by talking about how it is your responsibility to break the “senseless rules” for them. Frankly, there are better ways to effect change in a system than by ripping it to pieces on a whim… assuming you care about the people involved at ALL, which many claim to do. For those who claim to not care at all, well, if you actually believe that I don’t see that any communication between us would be very useful to either of us, heheh.

    Third and finally, the simple truth of the matter is that, while we absolutely are NOT responsible for others’ choices even if we unintentionally influenced them (by which I mean, we weren’t directly attempting to alter their behavior with our own), the consequences of our actions are something we ARE responsible for, inescapably. And those consequences are always so varied, and so unforeseeable, that I would NEVER choose to make a decision like this without careful consideration, consultation, and investigation, unless there were some EXTREMELY pressing circumstances. If I lose my damn ball, so be it. It’s not worth screwing something up royally that could so easily come back to bite me, hard.

    To conclude, thanks again for posting this Shamus, it was a real treat.

    (PS: I would seriously question the “yes” answer even if you are one of those people who honestly feel the “screw everyone else I want my ball” thing. You’re only concerned about yourself? That’s great. So why in the hell would you be so stupid as to rush blindly into a situation where you know absolutely nothing about it except that there’s this intensely stupid seeming rule that ALL THE CHILDREN FOLLOW UNSWERVINGLY. Come on! That’s got to be enough RIGHT THERE to raise some red flags in a pure self-preservationist. Leave the damn ball and figure out what the heck is going on here. For all you know if you break these kids’ taboo they’ll transform into flesh devouring monstrosities and eat you alive.)

  192. Miako says:

    Umm… I voted no, but I should have voted yes.
    The other kids have their own lives to live. I am not responsible for their stupidity.
    If i was feeling generous, I might model for them what “appropriate precaution” is like.
    But just cause they’re kids doesn’t mean that they should be prevented from their own stupidity.

  193. pelvic paladin says:

    There’s a way to do this that allows you to ‘break the rules’ that keep everybody safe while still being able to go about your business–actually, two ways, off the top of my head.

    Number one is the easiest and one which everyone here is most familiar with–invoking special authority. By saying you have special permission from the parents/the gods/righteousness, you’re allowed to ‘break’ the rules and do what you have to do.

    Number two is much more subtle and, in the long run, generally more helpful. It involves the ‘trickster’ archetype, and rather than setting yourself up as having special authority, you set yourself up as being unaffected by the normal rules–you’re outside the rule structure, so you can do things that normal people can’t. As a clown, you can flaunt the rules and show the others that the rules, though there for a reason, aren’t immutable and can be worked with–implicitly teaching them how to handle these boundaries.

    Number two is a lot harder than number 1 and requires not only a willingness to play the fool but a very solid understanding of the rules and boundaries and why they exist as well as a solid understanding of where and why the real harm exists.

  194. UbarElite says:

    Hello. Long time reader, first time commenter: a “lurker” I suppose. I also suppose it is a little tacky to post a comment on a post that hasn’t seen comments for a year and a half, but I found the question very interesting. I personally have been a fan of personal ace shcountability and against arbitrary rules/laws, so I agree with getting the ball on the grounds that the rule serves as a substitute to teaching how to perform the activity safely. Similar to drugs/alchohol (the latter I do rarely and the former I do never), I think it is more prudent to eliminate the mystery around such activities and teach how they can be done safely. To outlaw them only serves to enhance curiosity, or, as was the case with the story, lead to dangerous experimentation once somebody sees it happen. Teaching the children safety would be the next activity, although any injuries that resulted from experimentation would only prove my point that the rule shouldn’t exist.

  195. Mr. Wolf says:

    Earlier I promised I’d go four hours ago, but this was actually a rather interesting read. This scenario caused cognitive dissonance while trying to make an adult decision while taking the role of a child – but that same dissonance ultimately led me to my answer.

    My answer: Yes. I want my ball and have the means and the authority to go get it.

    The main argument against, that others may get hurt imitating me, assumes a huge amount of responsibility on my part. Adult-brained or not, I am a child and these are my peers. No matter how smart I may be, is it really up to me to make moral decisions for them or to keep them safe from their own mistakes? Highway-crossing may be dangerous knowledge for these kids, but to deny them this knowledge is awfully paternalistic for somebody the same age.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Be nice, don't post angry, and enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

You can enclose spoilers in <strike> tags like so:
<strike>Darth Vader is Luke's father!</strike>

You can make things italics like this:
Can you imagine having Darth Vader as your <i>father</i>?

You can make things bold like this:
I'm <b>very</b> glad Darth Vader isn't my father.

You can make links like this:
I'm reading about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader">Darth Vader</a> on Wikipedia!

You can quote someone like this:
Darth Vader said <blockquote>Luke, I am your father.</blockquote>

Leave a Reply to Yar Kramer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.