|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 19, 2021 20:46:04 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.
Approaching from where? How far off?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 19, 2021 21:06:05 GMT
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. Approaching from where? How far off?
If a train goes at 250 km/h, it means it travels around 70 m/s. So if it takes you two seconds to step on the tracks, 3 seconds to grab the baby, and three seconds again to step from the tracks, if the train is closer than 500 meters, you lose. And if the tracks happen to be at the end of a tunnel, which is pretty common for European high-speed trains, then you don't see the train coming in time anyway. And many high-speed tracks have walls next to them. If a baby was on these tracks, it would have to be on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 20, 2021 7:25:22 GMT
Approaching from where? How far off?
If a train goes at 250 km/h, it means it travels around 70 m/s. So if it takes you two seconds to step on the tracks, 3 seconds to grab the baby, and three seconds again to step from the tracks, if the train is closer than 500 meters, you lose. And if the tracks happen to be at the end of a tunnel, which is pretty common for European high-speed trains, then you don't see the train coming in time anyway. And many high-speed tracks have walls next to them. If a baby was on these tracks, it would have to be on purpose.
And what's the furthest distance you can see a train from?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 20, 2021 9:04:09 GMT
If a train goes at 250 km/h, it means it travels around 70 m/s. So if it takes you two seconds to step on the tracks, 3 seconds to grab the baby, and three seconds again to step from the tracks, if the train is closer than 500 meters, you lose. And if the tracks happen to be at the end of a tunnel, which is pretty common for European high-speed trains, then you don't see the train coming in time anyway. And many high-speed tracks have walls next to them. If a baby was on these tracks, it would have to be on purpose. And what's the furthest distance you can see a train from?
Depends on the shape of the rails and the surroundings. Usually less than 500m. If it's more than 500m, then I have to be far away from the rails. On a bridge maybe.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,669
Likes: 1,293
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2021 9:07:19 GMT
Approaching from where? How far off?
If a train goes at 250 km/h, it means it travels around 70 m/s. So if it takes you two seconds to step on the tracks, 3 seconds to grab the baby, and three seconds again to step from the tracks, if the train is closer than 500 meters, you lose. And if the tracks happen to be at the end of a tunnel, which is pretty common for European high-speed trains, then you don't see the train coming in time anyway. And many high-speed tracks have walls next to them. If a baby was on these tracks, it would have to be on purpose. Forget about trains then. Suppose you are walking by a river and see a child drowning. There's a life buoy next to you that you could throw out to the child. Do you have a moral obligation to do so?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2021 12:17:27 GMT
If a train goes at 250 km/h, it means it travels around 70 m/s. So if it takes you two seconds to step on the tracks, 3 seconds to grab the baby, and three seconds again to step from the tracks, if the train is closer than 500 meters, you lose. And if the tracks happen to be at the end of a tunnel, which is pretty common for European high-speed trains, then you don't see the train coming in time anyway. And many high-speed tracks have walls next to them. If a baby was on these tracks, it would have to be on purpose. Forget about trains then. Suppose you are walking by a river and see a child drowning. There's a life buoy next to you that you could throw out to the child. Do you have a moral obligation to do so? I do not have a moral obligation. I may have a legal obligation; I believe in Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is a crime. Whether I'd throw the buoy would depend on the situation. Is a crowd with torches and pitchforks standing at the shore? Did they throw the child in? Are they agressive? Did the Wicker Man stumble across an Omen?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,669
Likes: 1,293
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 22, 2021 15:52:08 GMT
Forget about trains then. Suppose you are walking by a river and see a child drowning. There's a life buoy next to you that you could throw out to the child. Do you have a moral obligation to do so? I do not have a moral obligation. I may have a legal obligation; I believe in Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is a crime. Whether I'd throw the buoy would depend on the situation. Is a crowd with torches and pitchforks standing at the shore? Did they throw the child in? Are they agressive? Did the Wicker Man stumble across an Omen? Suppose there's no risk to you whatsoever and you can somehow be certain of that. Would you still have no moral obligation?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 22, 2021 17:49:52 GMT
Forget about trains then. Suppose you are walking by a river and see a child drowning. There's a life buoy next to you that you could throw out to the child. Do you have a moral obligation to do so? I do not have a moral obligation. I may have a legal obligation; I believe in Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is a crime. Whether I'd throw the buoy would depend on the situation. Is a crowd with torches and pitchforks standing at the shore? Did they throw the child in? Are they agressive? Did the Wicker Man stumble across an Omen?
Here's one....what if it's YOU, who's drowning? Bet you wouldn't be so blase about 'meh, nobody has a moral obligation' then, would you?
Or here's one, what if you're in a car accident and it flips over, and you're injured, and can't get out, and everybody's just passing by? Sure, IF you can reach your phone, you can call 911, and they'll probably be there in 30 minutes...but the gas tank is punctured and the fumes are building up, how long will it take for the whole thing to catch fire? But hey, nobody's problem but yours, and you're fine with just hanging there until either help arrives or you become a crispy critter, right?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 22, 2021 21:06:46 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. In the state of FL, apparently you cannot be held criminally accountable for failing to help someone...in this case (coincidentally) when they are drowning.
Some time back, several teens watched a man drown...in fact they videoed the scene and made disparaging comments...laughing, etc.
So...that suggests there IS a significant difference to the point of one being a crime and making someone liable to be charged with murder vs no charges at al. Perhaps different states are different.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 22, 2021 21:14:15 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? There's no question that I would feel like I should try rescue the baby from the train tracks or try to rescue someone who is drowning.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2021 23:19:46 GMT
I do not have a moral obligation. I may have a legal obligation; I believe in Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is a crime. Whether I'd throw the buoy would depend on the situation. Is a crowd with torches and pitchforks standing at the shore? Did they throw the child in? Are they agressive? Did the Wicker Man stumble across an Omen? Suppose there's no risk to you whatsoever and you can somehow be certain of that. Would you still have no moral obligation? Yes, I would still have no moral obligation. This does not mean that I wouldn't throw the life buoy. It would depend on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 22, 2021 23:26:32 GMT
I do not have a moral obligation. I may have a legal obligation; I believe in Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" is a crime. Whether I'd throw the buoy would depend on the situation. Is a crowd with torches and pitchforks standing at the shore? Did they throw the child in? Are they agressive? Did the Wicker Man stumble across an Omen? Here's one....what if it's YOU, who's drowning? Bet you wouldn't be so blase about 'meh, nobody has a moral obligation' then, would you?
I expect others to treat me the way I treat them. Nobody has a moral obligation to save me. Or here's one, what if you're in a car accident and it flips over, and you're injured, and can't get out, and everybody's just passing by? Sure, IF you can reach your phone, you can call 911, and they'll probably be there in 30 minutes...but the gas tank is punctured and the fumes are building up, how long will it take for the whole thing to catch fire? But hey, nobody's problem but yours, and you're fine with just hanging there until either help arrives or you become a crispy critter, right?
Morally correct; legally the person who caused the accident is required to stay at the scene. If the car catches fire, I expect anyone who's not a professional fireworker to not help. I believe that's also the law even in Germany. You are not required to help if by doing so you'd put your own life in danger. I could be legally wrong of course.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 22, 2021 23:29:59 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. Well explained!
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 0:28:04 GMT
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. Well explained! Remember that calling the police is still doing something. The question is whether any moral opprobrium is due the person who, in this situation, does nothing.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 1:02:35 GMT
Remember that calling the police is still doing something. The question is whether any moral opprobrium is due the person who, in this situation, does nothing. I suppose that is true, though technically, walking away is doing something. I know this is an academic exercise, but I have actually been involved in a real-life situation that involved someone misrepresenting himself. I had a feeling that he was dangerous, but played the part of a good samaritan as far as I could, though I drew the line at giving him a ride. I had people waiting on me to arrive, somewhere else. After he walked away, I hyperventilated for a bit, then called 911. They told me that they were in pursuit of someone in the area, and to stay inside with the doors locked. When a deputy arrived, he showed me a mug shot and it was the guy that I had talked to. Several years later, I saw the identical mug shot in the newspaper - he had been caught, eventually, and was being held for trial for the murder of two women. Sometimes, things are not what they appear to be.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 1:35:09 GMT
Remember that calling the police is still doing something. The question is whether any moral opprobrium is due the person who, in this situation, does nothing. I suppose that is true, though technically, walking away is doing something. I know this is an academic exercise, but I have actually been involved in a real-life situation that involved someone misrepresenting himself. I had a feeling that he was dangerous, but played the part of a good samaritan as far as I could, though I drew the line at giving him a ride. I had people waiting on me to arrive, somewhere else. After he walked away, I hyperventilated for a bit, then called 911. They told me that they were in pursuit of someone in the area, and to stay inside with the doors locked. When a deputy arrived, he showed me a mug shot and it was the guy that I had talked to. Several years later, I saw the identical mug shot in the newspaper - he had been caught, eventually, and was being held for trial for the murder of two women. Sometimes, things are not what they appear to be. You suspected that you were being lied to. So, what was at stake for you by trusting the stranger was greater than what was at stake for him by your not trusting him. (If you refuse to give somebody a lift when you can see the lion chasing them, that'd be different.) The clearly academic, uncomplicated nature of the unattended baby on a railroad track is intended force an examination of the absolutist view that was expressed: "You are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do." In my opinion, it was being constantly dodged, so I stopped pursuing it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 23, 2021 1:49:10 GMT
OK let's look at a new scenario, let's say a political leader is selling weapons to another country and they in turn are using them to massacre civilians, and he's very much aware of what they are doing, should that political leader be tried for war crimes? Is that comparable to a political leader directly ordering for the massacre of civilians?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 1:50:27 GMT
I suppose that is true, though technically, walking away is doing something. I know this is an academic exercise, but I have actually been involved in a real-life situation that involved someone misrepresenting himself. I had a feeling that he was dangerous, but played the part of a good samaritan as far as I could, though I drew the line at giving him a ride. I had people waiting on me to arrive, somewhere else. After he walked away, I hyperventilated for a bit, then called 911. They told me that they were in pursuit of someone in the area, and to stay inside with the doors locked. When a deputy arrived, he showed me a mug shot and it was the guy that I had talked to. Several years later, I saw the identical mug shot in the newspaper - he had been caught, eventually, and was being held for trial for the murder of two women. Sometimes, things are not what they appear to be. You suspected that you were being lied to. So, what was at stake for you by trusting the stranger was greater than what was at stake for him by your not trusting him. (If you refuse to give somebody a lift when you can see the lion chasing them, that'd be different.) The clearly academic, uncomplicated nature of the unattended baby on a railroad track is intended to force an examination of the absolutist view that was expressed: "You are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do." In my opinion, it was being constantly dodged, so I stopped pursuing it. I don't know if it was being deliberately dodged, or was just too much to wrap a head around. It is an absolutist view and I know I struggle with those. It seems to me that there always has to be context.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 2:00:40 GMT
OK let's look at a new scenario, let's say a political leader is selling weapons to another country and they in turn are using them to massacre civilians, and he's very much aware of what they are doing, should that political leader be tried for war crimes? Is that comparable to a political leader directly ordering for the massacre of civilians? I think I see where this might be going, but I'll stay mum on that... In this scenario, yes, enabling the massacre of civilians is comparable to a direct order for the massacre of civilians. Though, if the leader stopped selling the weapons, theoretically weapons could be acquired elsewhere and the massacre could continue.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 23, 2021 7:16:19 GMT
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? Because the choice to do nothing did not set the event in motion where a baby ends up on the track. The person who did nothing did not put anyone in danger. So yes, no moral judgement for innocent bystanders (unless they actively prevent professionals from solving the situation, but that's another story).
|
|