> I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
Well, first this would only plausibly apply to dangers that have to do with you taking responsibility for the children. Is there is some exogenous risk that has nothing to do with where the children happen to be at a given time (a condition that is not analogous to the middle east) then you probably don't have duty to them above and beyond the normal case.
Second, and more importantly, if a choice really must be made then parents are empirically always going to choose their own children, and this is perhaps something you need to weigh when you let your children leave. Even in the extreme case where I am a parent directly responsible for putting my own and other's children at risk (e.g., I take them on a dangerous hike), I'm going to save my child before others. Note sure if that's moral, but that's the way it is.
> would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
Here I think there's a risk of conflating the outside-group/inside-group distinction we've been discussing with the adult/children distinction. I agree that teachers need to err on the side of putting themselves at risk rather than children, but this comes more from the fact that we all have greater duties to all children (regardless of relation) than we do to adults, because children are both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament).
And I would argue that in a trade-off between police or military safety vs civilian safety, civilians are similarly "both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament)" than the military or police that interacts with them.
> I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
Well, first this would only plausibly apply to dangers that have to do with you taking responsibility for the children. Is there is some exogenous risk that has nothing to do with where the children happen to be at a given time (a condition that is not analogous to the middle east) then you probably don't have duty to them above and beyond the normal case.
Second, and more importantly, if a choice really must be made then parents are empirically always going to choose their own children, and this is perhaps something you need to weigh when you let your children leave. Even in the extreme case where I am a parent directly responsible for putting my own and other's children at risk (e.g., I take them on a dangerous hike), I'm going to save my child before others. Note sure if that's moral, but that's the way it is.
> would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
Here I think there's a risk of conflating the outside-group/inside-group distinction we've been discussing with the adult/children distinction. I agree that teachers need to err on the side of putting themselves at risk rather than children, but this comes more from the fact that we all have greater duties to all children (regardless of relation) than we do to adults, because children are both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament).