Donoghue v Stevenson Anonymous 104959
The current common law standard for "negligence" comes from a British tort case that involved citing the bible verse "Love thy neighbor" as a standard for companies to have legal responsibility to "Not harm thy neighbor". Under a now allegedly atheistic framework nearly 90 years later, why does a company have any legal responsibility to not "harm thy neighbor"? As far as I can tell the legality of the situation purely revolves around a Christian framework, but assuming that you are not Christian why does anyone have a now legal responsibility to "not harm thy neighbor"?
I don't think it's just a Christian thing, the Golden rule exists in all religions and spiritual beliefs.
This isn't the golden rule. The golden rule is "do unto your neighbors as you would have done unto you". At best you could argue the silver rule applies "do not do unto others as you would not have do unto you", but even then, both of these rules imply a level of intentionality on the part of the "responsible" party as far as behavior goes, it does not in any fashion or form cover the concepts such as the consequences of actions that lack intentionality.
And to clarify, we are talking about negligence, not intentional harm or deceit. We're not talking about a company intentionally putting snails in soda bottles with the intent to harm (if such a situation is even conceivable), but a situation where a company has processes where a snail can possibly enter into a soda bottle and how and why the company should be responsible in such an instance.
>>104969>do unto your neighbors as you would have done unto you>love thy neighbor>not the same thing