The video is self-explanatory, though the various news reports haven’t always emphasized the ethics issue.

Heron was hit by a car and knocked down as well as, I assume, traumatized just a bit. Nonetheless, she picked herself up, dusted herself off (just like Fred Astaire!) and completed her job.

That she would deliver the food despite her mishap shouldn’t have been so shocking: it was the ethical thing to do. Yet I just heard my local news readers exclaim that they wouldn’t complete a delivery after that. Good to know: no one should hire them for any job requiring dedication, diligence, commitment or fortitude.

Since Miracle wasn’t hurt and the incident did not in anyway impede her ability to deliver the food, it would have been unethical for her not to do so. Once again, my theater background is governing: “the show must go on” is a core principle with me, and should be in any field. We never have leave to make our problems into other people’s problems for our own convenience. Undoubtedly, the driver could have used the accident as an excuse not to complete her job; nobody would blame her if she hadn’t. That fallacy, however, is at the root of Rationalization #18. Hamm’s Excuse, or “It wasn’t my fault“ and I realize #18 A is called for.

“Nobody could blame you!” is the new rationalization. The fact that you have an easy out to let you avoid your responsibilities doesn’t make it ethical to do so. Most people default to emotion over rationality and will allow sympathy and empathy to over-rule duty. Most people are ethics dunces. Miracle Heron did her job because someone was depending on her, and her employer had made a commitment to complete a transaction. She could have used the scary brush with serious injury as a reason not to do her job, but she didn’t, because it would have been unfair to the customer as well as her employer.

That near-miss definitely didn’t damage her well-regulated ethics alarms.