by nicolaou 44 Replies latest jw friends
If you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?
What defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?
If you see someone about to be struck by a car or otherwise step into harms way but choose not to call out a warning or act in some way to prevent disaster, are you responsible for any harm caused?
Legally, no, unless I am in a place where I am bound to do that as per their policy, best practices, or legally, such as a hospital.
What defence, if any, can be offered for choosing inaction?
That the person in the accident was Kellyanne Conway.
If the situations puts you in real danger you don't have to do anything. Like a house on fire you are not compelled to run into a burning fire to see if you can save someone.
"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.
"In Germany, failure to provide first aid to a person in need is punishable under ยง 323c of its criminal penal code. However, any help one provides cannot and will not be prosecuted even if it made the situation worse or did not fulfill specific first aid criteria. People are thus encouraged to help in any way possible........."
"Good Samaritan laws may be confused with the duty to rescue, as described above. U.S. and Canadian approaches to this issue differ. Under the common law, good Samaritan laws provide a defense against torts arising from the attempted rescue. Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue, such as exists in some civil law countries,[42] and in the common law under certain circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
In my small city, pop 7,000. You may not know every one's name but you probably know them by sight. This close knit community tends to look out for one another. So if you have a health or accident issue....people get involved right away especially with children.
The Mormons tend to do community service in many different ways and they are looked on favorably. Our local JW's however do no community service of any kind and it is noted.
All of the above does not apply to Donald Trump and Kellyanne Conway, nor anyone on the GB.
Thanks for your comments. Forget the law for now, I'm going for the morality of the question.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where saving a life requires almost no effort from you and presents you with no personal risk.
If you fail to act should you be held morally responsible for any harm or fatalities?
Gaaah! Just spotted the typo in my topic title..
I've noticed lately that there have been a rash of auto-versus-pedestrian incidents where the driver just keeps going. What shoud be done, morally? They shoud be run over and left there!
If you fail to act should you be held morally responsible for any harm or fatalities?
Morally responsible yes if I could have done something. Sometimes that can mean just making a phone call to 911 or attempting to block traffic so a person doesn't get run over.
That latter issue I experienced. On Main Street we have a cemetery that is historically significant and we get a lot of tourists. I saw a man putting a baby in his car and then his two year old started walking across the street. I Got in that lane and stopped to block traffic then hit my horn. I was ready to turn sideways and block the second lane if the child kept going. The father looked over to me and I started pointing at his child and he looked around and realized what was happening. He took off after the child scooped him up and got him to safety. From start to finish 5 to 10 seconds.
There was no way I could have ignored the danger that child was in.
A human's natural response is to fight, flee, or freeze. These are natural reactions, not moral ones. It's judgy humans that tend to moralize the natural. Inaction like freezing may still be an action, freezing. Humans don't always get to choose how they react, like a victim of sexual crime may freeze in the moment. It's a natural response but some moralize it, resulting in further shame for the victim.
I think the error is in your original post when you use the word "choose". That is a moral judgment itself. At times we choose, at times we act in whatever way our natural overwhelmed reaction is. Ascribing choice makes it a question of morality, which may or may not be fair. We humans like to pretend we're in more control than we are. Likely a person may regret their inaction in the moment, but in the moment their natural systems took over their power of choice.
If I were a "good" higher power, I would hold humans responsible for not caring.
Jesus for what it is worth,: you will be judged by every word you do not say.
