Your moral obligation to help innocents at risk?

Do you really think that it is splitting hairs to say that if you can not prevent any harm, that it is better to help them after harm instead of running away?
Click to expand...
Yes

In the first place no one even implied running away instead of helping after the fact.

The statement that you responded to was "sometimes you just have to watch the train wreck"
No mention was made of what happens after the wreck.
Your comment that my statement was wrong based on what you could do after the wreck was indeed hair splitting.

You further made a broadbrush statement that there was ALWAYS something that could be done during or after the fact.
I believe that was an incorrect statement because there is no such thing as always in any but the most controlled environment.
And there are many forseeable situation where there would be absolutly nothing that you could do.
Although it is not very concievable that I would be involved in any of them
 
Yes, there is ALWAYS something that can be done during or after the fact. I am not sure of why you would think that is an incorrect statement. The result of what you do is dependant on what you do and can make things better or worse, but there is always something that you can do.

You could shake up a beer can and throw it to distract the criminal or some other item. You can yell. You can fall down screaming. You can go running from the area or run in circles. The list goes on.
 
I personally don't see where I have any moral obligation to help a stranger if the resulting help endangers me or my loved ones.

I have helped strangers on several occasions, two of which directly involved risk to me. That was solely my choice. Basically, nobody tells me what MY moral obligations are. When you get to a point of telling others what their morals should be, regardless of how seemingly good hearted such morals are, then you are getting into the realm of dictating morals. Since you are not God and are not in my church, I don't care what morals you think I should have.

I personally think it is good to help out when you can, but I won't say that others should do my bidding.
 
Yes, there is ALWAYS something that can be done during or after the fact. I am not sure of why you would think that is an incorrect statement. The result of what you do is dependant on what you do and can make things better or worse, but there is always something that you can do.
Click to expand...
The one constant in life is that there are absolutely no absolutes.

Think for just a second and you should be able to come with at least a couple of situations where there would be no action you could take.

In any case as I have said nothing you do after the fact will in any way help/defend the victim

You could shake up a beer can and throw it to distract the criminal or some other item. You can yell You can fall down screaming. You can go running from the area or run in circles. . The list goes on.
Click to expand...
Throwing beer at a BG from 100 yards away as you watch him put a bullet in someones head will not help that someone.

Yelling and screaming and rolling around in the dirt would have no effect on the crazy driving his car into a crowd

Being a good witness will not save the baby that the deranged father is tossing out the 5th floor window, and first aid would probably be irrelevant.

The list goes on
 
There most certainly are!!!!

Death and taxes.
Click to expand...
Are they.
Walt Disney's head is frozen and buried under the castle
and you don't have to pay taxes, the most successful tax dodgers even get free room and board at government expense in one form or another

The one absolute is that there are no absolutes? Is that what I am reading?
Click to expand...
Absolutely
 
Wow, if this one aint a loaded question....

That is really tough. I believe as a people we all need to be there for eachother in times of need so my first instinctive response is that I would want to do what i could to eliminate the situational threat as you might be the next victim anyway. However although we may have a CHL what legal concequences might we face if we were to take that action? Are we still under the pretense of self defense or are we considered to be an agressor as much as the actual criminal, are we then unjustified vigilantes? Its a tough call, but i think if I see the helpless about to have thier life taken, I'll take the chance with the legal and the lobbyist.
 
Walt Disney's head is frozen and buried under the castle
Click to expand...
But is he alive?? ;)

and you don't have to pay taxes, the most successful tax dodgers even get free room and board at government expense in one form or another
Click to expand...

I'm sure they have paid some type of tax at one point or another. :D

All in good fun brother!
 
Aint ethics a funny thing?
I think that most of us know what is right and what is wrong.
Some people think that they dont know and others think that others dont know. Yet others think that others dont know what they think when they think they know. :)
I think of myself as a philosopher and I have taken a class on ethics. I dont believe in universal right but I do think that some things are wrong. Maybe everything is wrong. Why am I here? Should I be here?
Its all about POV but when SHTF its all about survival. Just try to keep your cool and dont crap your pants.
 
czc3513 said:
I think of myself as a philosopher and I have taken a class on ethics. I dont believe in universal right but I do think that some things are wrong. Maybe everything is wrong. Why am I here? Should I be here?
Click to expand...

If everything is wrong then wrong loses its frame of reference - saying "everything is right" or "everything is wrong" would be equally absurd statements, because with the total presence of one and the total absence of the other, there is no basis for comparison between the two. But perhaps that too is wrong and dualism is merely one of many erroneous ways that we interpret the true nature of the universe. I suppose it depends on whether the concept of "wrong" is contingent on human ethics, or if there is a deeper, universal law. But then I just think of what we know of scientific law, and I figure that as far as we know, that's the only sense of right and wrong that the universe has. It does what it does.

....Eh, maybe we'd better stick to PMs on this stuff :D

Something in this post has to be about this thread... I'll just reiterate what I've said before.

Acting without thinking can cause you to hurt others when your intent was to help them. "Good intentions" do not necessarily translate to right action. Those who bear arms must live lives of neverending, stringent self-examination regarding what is prudent, and what is beneficial to those around them. Non-interference may be far more helpful than active interference. It depends. Because that is so important, I'm going to type it again. It depends.
 
Glenn Wrote:

Whatever, the gun world likes to talk in absolutes - unfortunately, we know better about behavior. Good people easily do bad things under certain circumstances and vice versa. If people don't want to believe that for reasons of self-image, I really don't care. I talk to the informed reader who might want to know what determines altruism. We have known for a long time that people's introspections really are bad predictors of behavior in many situations.
Click to expand...

I understand your point Glenn, I think. :) You are sort of saying that it's much easier to point to yourself under anonimity on this forum, and announce that you would do this or that every time, because you are morally superior, yet when the SHTF, human nature and self-preservation often cause you to act differently than you think you would. Right?

If so, thats true. I won't deny it. I was only stating that for ME, I honestly believe I would, and have, helped people without a thought for myself. Did I do it for glory or out of an exaggerated sense of self-importance? No. I did it simply because I didn't think about it at all. I saw someone who needed help, was there, and did what I could. Would I risk my life every single time? I'm not sure. I don't really know the answer to that until the situation arises. But I do honestly believe my first instinctive thought in the situation would be to help if at all possible. Call it what you will. I chalk it up to the way I was raised, and the values that were instilled in me all my life.
 
All in good fun brother!
Click to expand...
I took it as such, but

How dare you even imply that Uncle Walt, the sainted builder of Orlando and Kissimee, is not alive.

I'm telling on you next time I see him

And not all countries have taxes like we do

I have an uncle in Vietnam that has never paid any taxes
 
My Ethics instructor suggested that ethics is what you think that it is. You might think that it is this, because you think that others think that it is this. You might think that allowing someone to die is wrong because you think that other people think this. Personally, I would not allow someone to die. Its not about ethics, its about being a hero. I want to be a hero. :)
 
I see 4 outcomes to this situation.
A store is being robbed at gunpoint.
I am in the store and I have a gun.
I could...
(A) Shoot the BG. (GREY)
(B) Shoot the BG if he shoots anyone. (BLUE)
(C) Wait and call 911. (GREEN)
or
(D) Wait, shoot the BG, grab the money, and run. (RED)
Click to expand...

Should a cop A or B?
 
Its not about ethics, its about being a hero. I want to be a hero.
Click to expand...

The opportunities for heroism are limited in this kind of world: the most people can do is sometimes not to be as weak as they've been at other times. - Angus Wilson
 
In this day and age of gun owners increasingly being targetted as agressors, I don't see myself rushing in to help people I don't know. Yes, I could save a life, but I'm just as likely to be arrested for interfering.

Granted, in Indiana, I believe I'm more likely to be viewed as a good citizen preventing a crime, but if it's not me or my loved ones being assaulted, I just don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top