|
|
Post by Clare on Jan 12, 2005 18:45:04 GMT 11
A Callous Passerby Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation ["Good Samaritan" laws] as well? (taken from www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm)Anyone else in the mood for some dilemmarising? |
|
talisha
Guildmember
Number One Rushton Supporter GO WANDIES!
Posts: 1,535
|
Post by talisha on Jan 12, 2005 22:14:50 GMT 11
ooh! that was terrible!
Are we supposed to be adding our thoughts?
I think it was his obligation to save the boy. Has he no concience? To me, it's the same as being charged as for standing by and witnessing a crime, and not doing anything about it. Like with holding information. There was a word for it, but I've completely drawn a blank.
Didnt want to get his clothes wet. Pah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat-Eyes on Jan 12, 2005 23:11:40 GMT 11
Yes, he should help the boy. Unless there is a danger to himself, he should help the boy. If that kid drowned, there's an arguable case for manslaughter there. It's not murder cause he didn't push him in, but he contributed to that boy's death.
And what a tool anyway! "Oh, I don't want to catch a cold, and my clothes might get wet... oh, i'm so amazingly self-centered I'd let a poor innocent kid drown to protect my shirt!"
Just wait till he's the one drowning!
Cat
|
|
|
|
Post by Arien on Jan 12, 2005 23:18:58 GMT 11
WHAT?! WHAT A JERK! How can he NOT help him? How can he live with the knowledge that he could've helped that person, and saved his life, but instead, did nothing and walked away? I wouldn't be able to understand it, especially under such stupid circumstances- 'i don't wanna get my clothes wet' bah!
Ok, if there WAS a danger, i'd understand the guy not wanting to put himself at risk, but...blah! A whole lot of good people out there would just risk it anyway, to try and save the kid's life
|
|
|
|
Post by Min on Jan 13, 2005 0:42:12 GMT 11
Moral obligations...it's a matter of perception. We can't judge Smith for not getting involved in it - it was his right and choice. Saying that anyone is obligated to aid a stranger isn't how our culture's been raised - we're told to not speak to strangers from a young age, to trust no one, to mind our own business. To then turn around and say that Smith should have helped him is a contradiction of social teachings. To then prosecute him is also a contradiction.
There are many ifs and maybes in the scenario - Smith could have jumped in, saved the boy, but in a struggle ended up breaking the kid's arm and be sued. He could jump in only to find out it's a hoax created by a bunch of teenagers to prey on lone adults.
We'd most certainly choose to help, we all say. I would hope that I would anyway. I think about it now, about the social upbringing we have as young women (most of us, sorry boys) - if you were walking by a deserted pier and there was a teenage boy calling out in the water for help, would you go to him?
It definately is a moral dillema...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gahtha on Jan 13, 2005 0:43:52 GMT 11
my head hurts  |
|
|
|
Post by Arien on Jan 13, 2005 0:48:07 GMT 11
that's a good point, Min I missed the 'deserted' bit 
Though it's really the guy's attitude that i don't get. There's no real concerns about any of the things you brought up- he's just afraid of catching a cold and getting his clothes wet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gahtha on Jan 13, 2005 0:53:54 GMT 11
yeah...my head still hurts |
|
|
|
Post by Swallow on Jan 13, 2005 11:35:09 GMT 11
There has been a couple of cases where a person who was trying to help someone, took out their dentures because they were blocking the person's airway, and subseqently was sued because they were lost. I know it has happened a few times from memory. And i know they told us when i did my first aide training to make sure they at least go in the person pocket if you have to remove them.... and even then, they can still get you for taking them out, or something.
it's bloody ridiculous... I can understand someone not wanting to take the risk. but then again, i am sure that it is stated somewhere that if you don't help someone in danger, if it is at no risk to you, it is akin to manslaughter..... not wanting to get wet is not enough of an excuse. Did he call the police or ambulance to help?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat-Eyes on Jan 13, 2005 11:52:54 GMT 11
Yeah, I've done scout first aid training, and there's stuff like one of the scenarios we had was a baby in a deserted car on a hot day. Now, this is obviously dangerous to the baby if they've been left there, but you have to call out n dmake sure that the parent / driver or whatever isn't just in the bushes, or whatever before you go smashing windows etc (which you don't smash the one over the baby, once you've ascertained that there is no one around).
Min, from my interpretation, Smith is older than the boy, because the boy is referred to as a teenage boy, and Smith isn't. Therefore I would assume he is twenties at least or whathaveyou, so he's an adult. The stranger danger thing, especially for a male, seems to wear out by the time they're an adult. Besides, he could have called out to the boy, thrown him a rope etc. He didn't necessarily have to jump in to help him. Don't most piers have ropes and other life-saving equipment on them? One of those tyre thingies? Anything? A convenient branch?
Cat
|
|
Gambit
Guildmember
yay. tis me
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by Gambit on Jan 13, 2005 19:13:06 GMT 11
she just wanted to get a debate started.
I'm with Tejane...It makes my head hurt
|
|
|
|
Post by Min on Jan 13, 2005 21:10:05 GMT 11
Yeah, I was just trying to look at it from some angle other than "what a jerk!".  And with the whole "Stranger Danger" thing...I didn't mean that'd be fresh in the guy's mind. I was talking about social upbringing - from a young age these days we're taught to not get involved with strangers. And teenager or adult or whatever - it doesn't matter these days. Just yesterday on the news there was this report of two teenagers beating up an elderly lady. But yeah, I suppose Clare's original post was defining that Smith's only thoughts were he didn't want to get wet and catch a cold - now THAT'S selfish. |
|
|
|
Post by ~Dani~ on Jan 14, 2005 12:25:58 GMT 11
Very selfish  |
|
|
|
Post by Cat-Eyes on Jan 14, 2005 12:27:47 GMT 11
He's being amazingly selfish, AND he didn't necessarily have to jump in to help the boy. We did some lifesaving last time I had swimming lessons and we did it with ropes, with these things that were supposedly a branch. It probably wouldn't have to be that long since he just fell off the pier, it's not like he fell off, swam 20 metres and then started drowning. And if he's still drowning he hasn't been in there an incrediably long time, so probably hasn't drifted far (Not to be cruel or anything, but if he'd been in there long enough to drift 20m and he really can't swim, he's not going to be still struggling. He's going to be needed mouth-to-mouth and depending on how long he's been in there, he could be gone).
He could even have tried to instruct the boy what to be doing to float. Or at least called out to the boy to see if he really was drowning, or just felt a bit nippy and was trying to warm himself up.
There's any number of things he could have done, lots of them don't even require he gets wet. And he didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gahtha on Jan 14, 2005 13:37:49 GMT 11
Yeah!  |
|
|
|
Post by Clare on Jan 15, 2005 16:10:19 GMT 11
Oh yes.. he is incredibly selfish but the question is does he have a moral obligation and if so does he have a legal obligation? Did any of you see the final of Seinfield? It's the same scenario - the Good Samaritan. Jerry, Kramer, Elaine and George stand around watching a fat guy get beat up and laugh about his weight. They are then prosecuted under the contentious "Good Samaritan Law."
How do we judge whether someone has a moral obligation? Every individual has a different set of values and morals based on their cultural or religious background - as Min said, their social upbringing. Some religions do not permit their followers to recieve medical treatment if they are ill whilst others would feel morally obliged to attempt to heal anyone who was sick.
What makes their values any less right or more wrong than your own? What makes Mr Smith's choice any less valid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elspeth on Jan 16, 2005 17:22:29 GMT 11
By the butter-fed beetle! I just wrote a long and thoughtful response to this and when I clicked on post, ProBoards decided that my six hour login had expired and I LOST THE ENTIRE THING!
*wails*
I was going to make a (hopefully) insightful comment on this, but it was so exhausting typing it up the first time and I can't remember most of what I said anyway. So instead I'll just curse ProBoards' name.
*curses ProBoards' name*
I feel a little better now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat-Eyes on Jan 21, 2005 21:09:47 GMT 11
*pats Bun on the back* There there...
|
|
|
|
Post by Timm on Jan 21, 2005 22:54:44 GMT 11
Let's switch back to Network54! Or not... |
|
