Moral Obligation to Take Action
- Thread starter pfch1977
- Start date
- Status
BreacherUp!
New member
David, disagree. It really is that simple, IMO. All the other arguments are cover stories and rationalizations for ones actions or inactions. But the person (not the persona) falls into one of the 3.
BreacherUp!
New member
That's great boggs. Class act.
"Is it really my obligation to take action?"
There is no legal obligation, arguably no moral one, and those who would do so responsibly are the better for it.
"Responsibly" is the caveat allowing for situational reasons not to engage. Solo parenting with kids in tow, impossible odds, a "hunch" there won't be blood shed, on meds, under the weather, and other at the moment decisions which may lead someone otherwsie iclined to engage not to do so.
Importantly, nobody can, should, or must engage all the time. Just as there are sisuations where some who claim they'd would never do so must.
There is no legal obligation, arguably no moral one, and those who would do so responsibly are the better for it.
"Responsibly" is the caveat allowing for situational reasons not to engage. Solo parenting with kids in tow, impossible odds, a "hunch" there won't be blood shed, on meds, under the weather, and other at the moment decisions which may lead someone otherwsie iclined to engage not to do so.
Importantly, nobody can, should, or must engage all the time. Just as there are sisuations where some who claim they'd would never do so must.
Last edited:
Boris Bush
Moderator
David Armstrong
I never said a gunfight needed to be started. But. If you decide to do something you better be ready to do something. Maybe you just give him a good beating, or maybe you have to shoot them.
If someone is so bold as to start a criminal act then I will not take a chance they will let the homeowner live if they are there when they begin the crime.
I will never think "well maybe if I do nothing he will let them live....."
I never said a gunfight needed to be started. But. If you decide to do something you better be ready to do something. Maybe you just give him a good beating, or maybe you have to shoot them.
If someone is so bold as to start a criminal act then I will not take a chance they will let the homeowner live if they are there when they begin the crime.
I will never think "well maybe if I do nothing he will let them live....."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said:
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
-----
When it comes right down to it, each of us will make our own decision to act or not act, and the outcome will be better or worse for it, and each of us will have to live with or die with our decision.
The "moral or immoral" question is just window dressing.
In reply Jesus said:
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
-----
When it comes right down to it, each of us will make our own decision to act or not act, and the outcome will be better or worse for it, and each of us will have to live with or die with our decision.
The "moral or immoral" question is just window dressing.
TexasSeaRay
New member
Nothing overly simplistic about it.
Everywhere we did missions around the world, we saw wolves (bad guys/terrorists, Sandanistas, etc), we saw sheep (the huddled civilian masses who cried, screamed and begged the wolves not to hurt them--even when the wolves had walked into their village at 1:00 in the morning and emasculated the village chief, then began having their way with the chief's wife and daughters) . . .
and there were the sheepdogs who had had enough and took up whatever arms they could find in order to defend their village.
We helped train and support those sheepdogs. And of course, the sheep were never grateful and the sheepdogs among them were often resented because "as long as you're here, you're only inviting trouble--the bad soldiers will be BACK so just please leave!"
I saw it all over the world while in the military, and all over the country when in law enforcement.
It really is that simple. And right here in America, it's getting simpler. The wolves and sheep are continuing to increase in numbers every day.
And the one thing both have in common is that they dislike the sheepdogs very much.
Jeff
mvpel, well put (except "each of us will have to live AND die with our decision"). I know I mentioned to a friend at church I carried and he said "as a Christian, he didn't think he could shoot someone" to which I replied, sitting in the cafe at Church, "if someone came in here right now and started shooting my brothers and sisters (in the Lord) I couldn't just sit here and watch it happen having the warewithal to stop it" and I dont just mean having the gun on my person, I mean to include have the knowledge, ability, and own guns, meaning to have it with me, when it's allowed, to use the "talent" I've been given. Neither could I watch even a complete stranger experience the terror of being at gun point defenseless and do nothing with the ability to do something.
There is a difference in helping a fellow American being robbed and rushing a machine gun nest in terms of risk. No one is going look down on you for doing nothing if coming to the rescue meant certain death to you. However using a broad brush to cover every robbery scenario that you might be able to help is just wrong. Many instances for example you may have the advantage in surprise, reactionary curve, shooting experience, and firepower. The odds of you getting killed may have been worst in your hobbies yet your family's well being didn't stop you from them.
For me I would be willing to accept increased risk to myself to aid a fellow American in need. I've done it before just not with firearms involved. I will use my judgment to determine whether or not the risk is to high.
As a conservative I refuse to accept handouts in the form of welfare or other government assistance. Thats why I've purchased life insurance. Not only to protect my family should I be killed in a robbery intervention situation but to protect them if I die for any reason. Any prudent father should do so.
For me I would be willing to accept increased risk to myself to aid a fellow American in need. I've done it before just not with firearms involved. I will use my judgment to determine whether or not the risk is to high.
As a conservative I refuse to accept handouts in the form of welfare or other government assistance. Thats why I've purchased life insurance. Not only to protect my family should I be killed in a robbery intervention situation but to protect them if I die for any reason. Any prudent father should do so.
When it is yourself you are defending, and not your family it is relative.
When it is your family it is absoloute.
For example; you are on your own and a guy approaches you at an ATM asking for 10$.
I would give it to him and report it to the cops, unless there was a major factor that had to make me defend myself.
At home 1am with my family, a guy bursts in with a knife and threatens to kill members of my family if i dont comply with him. Then in that case I think it would be a moral absoloute to respond in a way to defend yourself and your family.
When it is your family it is absoloute.
For example; you are on your own and a guy approaches you at an ATM asking for 10$.
I would give it to him and report it to the cops, unless there was a major factor that had to make me defend myself.
At home 1am with my family, a guy bursts in with a knife and threatens to kill members of my family if i dont comply with him. Then in that case I think it would be a moral absoloute to respond in a way to defend yourself and your family.
David Armstrong
Moderator
One is certainly entitled to one's own opinion. However, to suggest that opinion is a fact is somewhat questionable. One can disagree all they want, but the facts are fairly obvious. For example, am I a wolf, sheepdog, or sheep? And how would you determine that?
My gist was that if you choose not to intervene, you may or may not die as a result of that decision. Likewise, if you choose to intervene, you may or may not die as a result of that decision.
If you live through the incident, while either intervening or not, you will have to live with the "what-ifs" either way. "What if I'd been able to save that innocent person's life?" or "What if I didn't really need to kill that criminal?"
If you die, while either intervening or not, you won't be living with the consequences of your decision in any case. Hence, I didn't think "and" was suited for the sentence.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Either way you are changing the dynamics of the event, probably for the worse. Again, as I've pointed out, even LE suggest that off-duty officers refrain from acting in these situations as the primary default, and acting only if there are unusual circumstances. There is a reason for that.
But you will take the chance that when you do whatever it is you are going to do that it will make things worse and might result in somebody getting killed that would not have.
Why not? That is the most likely outcome, by a huge margin. Do you base all of your actions on this reasoning, that one should ignore the most likely and respond to the least?
David Armstrong
Moderator
Yes, it is quite simplistic, and based on stereotyping. Thus, almost by definition, it is going to be wrong. And if the sheepdog causes the sheep to be harmed when it would not be, is he still a sheepdog or a wolf?
That's why good judgment and common sense is essential when carrying defensive arms.
I think what pushes these threads towards tedious pedantry is the assumption that good judgment and common sense is not stipulated or presumed by each poster.
Sure, there are situations where it wouldn't be a good idea to intervene, and in such situations, I probably wouldn't intervene. Saying "I would intervene" and that I feel that there is a moral obligation to intervene in defense of another, doesn't mean that I'm saying that I'd intervene if it were obvious that it would be an utterly idiotic thing to do.
I mean, let's give each other some credit here.
David Armstrong, well if you've got a gun pointed at a clerk or innocent bystander it should be fairly obvious who you are. The bottom line is if you have the means to act you should. If you were the clerk and somebody had a gun pointed at you, would you want someone to take action or just sit back and wait for the police. If someone walks in with a gun that means that person has the potential to take a life, now whether he/she will you don't know. One thing is for sure though if they pull the trigger it will be to late to say, man I should have done something.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So I should buy life insurance to take care of my family when I get killed to save you and you won't even give my family a buck or two - because that is the conservative philosophy?
Don't people have a moral obligation to help a family whose life has been ruined by the loss of the breadwinner to evil - esp. when he or she was trying to save people?
N0 - the good samaritan is doing charity work and paying for saving you. By this logic, it is the responsibility of the victim to have bought a gun, intensively trained in its usage and in the martial arts so that they wouldn't need help. That is the conservative way.
If someone dies to save you - you should give them all your money.
Don't people have a moral obligation to help a family whose life has been ruined by the loss of the breadwinner to evil - esp. when he or she was trying to save people?
N0 - the good samaritan is doing charity work and paying for saving you. By this logic, it is the responsibility of the victim to have bought a gun, intensively trained in its usage and in the martial arts so that they wouldn't need help. That is the conservative way.
If someone dies to save you - you should give them all your money.
- Status