|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 17, 2021 23:56:30 GMT
Do you think these two are essentially the same thing? For instance if someone is drowning and you refuse to throw them a life draft (for whatever reasons) do you think that is as bad as someone that intentionally tries to drown someone (by say dunking their head in water)? Do you think both should deserve the same criminal sentence?
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 18, 2021 11:13:52 GMT
Do you think these two are essentially the same thing? For instance if someone is drowning and you refuse to throw them a life draft (for whatever reasons) do you think that is as bad as someone that intentionally tries to drown someone (by say dunking their head in water)? Do you think both should deserve the same criminal sentence? No, not at all! Deliberately allowing somebody to die without making any effort to save them is abhorrent and fully deserving of a criminal sentence, but actively participating in their death is an entirely different ballpark! I'm sure most criminal law codes take the same view.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 18, 2021 22:19:22 GMT
Do you think these two are essentially the same thing? No. In my opinion you are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 0:32:41 GMT
In my opinion you are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do. So you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing a baby from the train track?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Feb 19, 2021 4:58:05 GMT
I am still not sure what philosophical camp I fall into, but the closest is probably nihilism of some kind.
I don't see that I have any obligation to do good, I do good based on a subjective emotional response to the situation. I do bad for the same reason.
If I saw someone drowning I would try and save them...depending on how empathetic and caring I am at that particular moment. There are days when I am apathetic and indifferent and days when I am empathetic and caring.
Luckily for other people the days where I am apathetic and indifferent aren't as often as the days where I am empathetic and caring.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 8:03:28 GMT
In my opinion you are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do. So you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing a baby from the train track? Correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 19, 2021 9:02:37 GMT
Would that also be your personal choice? I'm being specific here: if you came across a baby on a train track and knew a train was going to come along in a few minutes, and there was nobody else around, would you rescue the baby or would you leave it there?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 10:17:48 GMT
Would that also be your personal choice? I'm being specific here: if you came across a baby on a train track and knew a train was going to come along in a few minutes, and there was nobody else around, would you rescue the baby or would you leave it there? I don't know. I guess I'd call the police.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 19, 2021 10:53:08 GMT
I don't think they're equally bad since the former involves making an effort to see harm happen, but I certainly think allowing harm which you have the power to prevent is morally reprehensible,
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 11:56:21 GMT
So you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing a baby from the train track? Correct. Such a person is utterly devoid of compassion. Some moral opprobrium (at least) would be called for.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 15:36:08 GMT
Such a person is utterly devoid of compassion. Some moral opprobrium (at least) would be called for. Which is exactly why I personally would not automatically rush to help. I would ask myself: Why is a baby alone on the railway? Did the guardians put it there on purpose? Is it part of a sociological experiment, possibly set up by a psychopath? That's one thing that annoys me with many movies where a psychopathic killer sets up a game, where the victims have to play in order to get out. Like in the Saw movies. Why do the victims play the game? How can they believe that the psychopath will keep his word? At least in "the Dark Knight", the victims refused to play. And they all survived. So the best course of action would be to call the police and ask for instructions. Unless you know the whole picture. Then you can decide for yourself what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 16:03:29 GMT
Such a person is utterly devoid of compassion. Some moral opprobrium (at least) would be called for. So the best course of action would be to call the police and ask for instructions. Unless you know the whole picture. Then you can decide for yourself what to do. Sorry, but that's the easy way out. The person (not you or me) sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track? (Remember, even calling the police is still doing something, not nothing. We're talking about bearing responsibility when you do nothing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 17:07:32 GMT
So the best course of action would be to call the police and ask for instructions. Unless you know the whole picture. Then you can decide for yourself what to do. Sorry, but that's the easy way out. The person (not you or me) sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track? (Remember, even calling the police is still doing something, not nothing. We're talking about bearing responsibility when you do nothing.) If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 17:14:02 GMT
Sorry, but that's the easy way out. The person (not you or me) sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track? (Remember, even calling the police is still doing something, not nothing. We're talking about bearing responsibility when you do nothing.) If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case. C'mon, I didn't say the train is one second from impact. People see approaching trains well in advance. Nobody else can be summoned to arrive in time, but the person right there has more than enough time to remove the baby safely. But he does nothing. No moral opprobrium for him?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 18:08:52 GMT
If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case. C'mon, I didn't say the train is one second from impact. People see approaching trains well in advance. Nobody else can be summoned to arrive in time, but the person right there has more than enough time to remove the baby safely. But he does nothing. No moral opprobrium for him? Again: Yes. They did not put the baby there. They are not responsible for its well-being. Whoever put the baby there is responsible, and also responsible for the train driver's trauma. If you want to assign blame, blame the person who dumped a baby on the track. But leave innocent bystanders alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 18:52:30 GMT
C'mon, I didn't say the train is one second from impact. People see approaching trains well in advance. Nobody else can be summoned to arrive in time, but the person right there has more than enough time to remove the baby safely. But he does nothing. No moral opprobrium for him? Again: Yes. They did not put the baby there. They are not responsible for its well-being. Whoever put the baby there is responsible, and also responsible for the train driver's trauma. If you want to assign blame, blame the person who dumped a baby on the track. But leave innocent bystanders alone. Yes, I'll blame the person who dumped the baby there. But blame is not indivisible. Sometimes portions of blame can be spread. I don't understand why you don't look poorly on that person who could have easily done something, but chose to do nothing. It is still a choice that he made. Why does one choice (the "do nothing" choice) get to be free of any moral judgment when that choice also has a consequence, just as a choice to do something has a consequence?
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 19, 2021 19:51:06 GMT
Sorry, but that's the easy way out. The person (not you or me) sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track? (Remember, even calling the police is still doing something, not nothing. We're talking about bearing responsibility when you do nothing.) If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case.
When was the last time you saw a train?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 20:08:02 GMT
If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case.
When was the last time you saw a train?
Personally, I do a fair amount of travel by train. And I can see one approaching far enough away to step on the tracks and sing the first verse of "Old MacDonald Had A Farm" if I wish. Of course I haven't been on a train lately due to the pandemic.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 20:29:43 GMT
When was the last time you saw a train?
Personally, I do a fair amount of travel by train. And I can see one approaching far enough away to step on the tracks and sing the first verse of "Old MacDonald Had A Farm" if I wish. Of course I haven't been on a train lately due to the pandemic. The last long distance train I took was an ICE that travels at more than 200 km/h. If you stepped on the rails when that train is approaching, you'd be turned to Hamburger before being able to sing "MacDonald". That was just a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2021 20:33:49 GMT
Personally, I do a fair amount of travel by train. And I can see one approaching far enough away to step on the tracks and sing the first verse of "Old MacDonald Had A Farm" if I wish. Of course I haven't been on a train lately due to the pandemic. The last long distance train I took was an ICE that travels at more than 200 km/h. If you stepped on the rails when that train is approaching, you'd be turned to Hamburger before being able to sing "MacDonald". That was just a few weeks ago. But in the hypothetical we've already established that our potential rescuer has enough time to act safely. It must a local.
|
|
