Being a mandated reporter does not supersede being a decent human being. All those who had a hand in covering up the abuse of children at PSU failed at being decent human beings. Whether they or their supporters want to continue with the "fulfilled the legal obligation" line is irrelevant
That is still making huge assumptions Red Light.
I have avoided getting into the moral obligation area because it is a bog of possibilities. Moral choice does not exist in a void nor does society give clear definitions to moral actions.
As I noted long past in these threads moral action changes across time as social mores shift. As far back as Sextus Empiricus philosophers have denied the absolute nature of moral values as divinely given but as human institutions and creations. Ex. we would affirm today aspects of the Code of Hamurabbi and and the Law of Israel but would reject other aspects. This moral relativism is the broken into both individual relativism (as in Nietsche's superhuman) and cultural relativism approval of one's culture. Do you see where this is headed as a quagmire?
Kant defined moral action in virtue of its motives. It is a deontological argument that many here would find comforting. Since we know nothing of the motives except for guesses here and since neither JoePA nor McQueary have spoken of their motives we muddy the waters even further. And it can equally be argued that these two did their duty under the law against self-interest. Meeting Kant's definition of moral action.
Judging issues and behavior like this with moral certitude is tenuous at best without knowing much more than what we have at hand except as defined by the law and cultural choices codified in that law by a representative democracy.
Consider the kosher laws. Some Jews today still keep kosher and find it an important aspect of their relationship to the _ _ _ who gave them. Christians generally do not keep kosher law based on Peter's vision from God in the book of Acts. Still other Jews no longer keep kosher law, also, because they believe they no longer serve the purpose for which they were given. All three of these groups relate in some way to the same law and yet all come to different moral conclusions concerning the right use and implications of the kosher laws.
In the ancient world children were essentially property until they came of age. They had few rights and protections. Today we have vastly different views of children and their rights and protections but they are not absolute and they are fluid. Consider the child labor laws. Wading into discussions of moral rightness and wrongness while most generally the same among us because we live in the same culture are still not monolithic.
The entire exploration of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is about this very issue of the clash between law, ethic and morals. When we know nothing of the motivations and context of the various actors at PSU it is very hard for us to speak absolutely about their moral and immoral actions.
If you want to see how quickly moral action can descend into a chaos of opinions just look at the multitude of responses to the Occupy movement. There are individuals and social groups (political parties are social groups) who consider it moral and others see it immoral.
