Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Yes, being the same species alone isn't enough reason to require that a person risk their life to stop a crime or rescue someone. Simply calling the cops, alone should be considered both a morally and legally acceptable response.
|
Knowing that people have the capacity to experience great suffering should be enough to encourage intervention. But calling the police is the least one should do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Moral grounds in and of themelves aren't sufficent to be the cause of a law. Besides, who decides what is moral? What are their reasons for said decisions? Are they rational? Are they up to date? Do they consider the situation holistically, and thoroughly or do they give in to emotion, tradition, or religion?
|
Besides morality, where else do we get laws? Other than rational thought, where is morality based? The laws should be up to date if the system is properly managed. And, no, they should not be based on emotion, tradition, or religion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Not necessarily, if the social order is inherently unfair to a person or group of people how does enforcing the social order make such a law just? There are examples in human history of such laws.
|
We were speaking of a just society (i.e. a society with a fair and balanced social order). Let's refer back to the idea of keeping things up to date.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Such a law would be unjust, as it requires people to risk their lives for strangers. In addition how much danger a person should be required to risk to save a victim, whether it's of crime or other danger, is subjective by it's very nature.
|
Let's not confuse "unjust" with "asking too much." I think it unjust to do nothing, or worse, turn a blind eye to a crime. I agree, however, that it may be too much to
legally require someone to risk their life for a stranger.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Should a 6'4 250 pound man be held to a different standard than a 5'2' 110 pound woman under the law in such a situation? If so, then you have a 14th Amendment problem, because they don't have equal protection under the law, (one is required to risk his life in a situation where the other isn't required to risk hers) if not then you overlook the fact that a 6'4'' 250lb man is probably more capable in physical combat than a 5'2" 110 pound woman. To treat either party differently under the law in this case is wrong both morally and constitutionally.
|
Again, I think it may be a little too much to legally require one to intervene.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Such a law would also encourage vigiliantism.
|
Aren't there laws against that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
It is about protecting a stranger, because you know nothing about the person whose being attacked other than those things you can know simply by looking at the person. Citizenship isn't something that you can tell by looking at someone here in the US. Even if you could, if the victim were an illegal immigrant, or even a legal immigrant that hadn't become a naturalized citizen, would the standard be different?
|
It shouldn't be. The crime would be taking place within the society, not merely exclusively to the illegal immigrant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
The bystanders didn't have a way of knowing that the victim was a citizen and a world war II vet simply by looking at him at the time of the attack, unless he was wearing clothing that would identify him as such, and the people knew the meaning of said identifying clothing.
|
It shouldn't really matter. See above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
I don't claim to have a right against other civilians to require that they come to my aid if I'm being attacked by criminals or otherwise in danger. That's the duty of the law enforcement personnel, the duty that they're paid to do. The most that can justly be asked in my opinion, is for the civilians to call law enforcment at the earliest safe opportunity to do so. Even then there are potential problems, should the law attempt to prosecute.
|
It's not necessarily about rights, so much as it is doing what's right.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
I didn't sign up for this simply by being born. The nature of being born is that it's a decision made solely by one's parents, without one's input. [...]
|
Regardless, you are a subject of the society into which you were born. We can only hope that we are born into one that is just. All things considered, you wouldn't want to be born into anarchy, would you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
Does it really matter as to this discussion? In this specific case, something is being done. Is there human institution that has a 100% success rate on all things all the time?
|
Although I appreciate your consideration for the original post, the discussion we've been having reaches beyond this particular case. We've been asking each other what should or should not be required by law or by moral standards. As you implied, we should assume that law enforcement may not always be available or successful in their duties. This would be the rationale behind laws requiring citizens to act in certain ways in these situations. (Once again, I'm uncertain about the feasibility of such laws.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Terrell
That's your choice, mine would be to dial 911 from the nearest phone and summon law enforcement.
|
We all do what we will.