Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Calling the police in this type of situation, should be tne Most that is legally or morally expected of you. In pretty much any likely to happen situation where someone is in need of rescue from danger, there is also some danger to any potential rescuer. Especially if said rescuer doesn't have training or aptitudes specific to the situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
Rational argument, should definitely be a part of the source of laws. It should carry the most weight of all possible types of arguments for or against a law in my opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
I was referring to whether or not a law requiring physical intervention was just or not. I was specific to that in my comments with use of the word "just".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
Again, I think it may be a little too much to legally require one to intervene.
|
Notifying the authorities isn't turning a blind eye to crime. One doesn't have to jump into a fight with a carjacker, and possibly be killed, to not be "turning a blind eye to crime".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Aren't there laws against that?
|
And requring the bystander to intervene would mean that he has the law telling him 2 mutually exclusive things to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It shouldn't be. The crime would be taking place within the society, not merely exclusively to the illegal immigrant.
|
The crime would be a violation of the illegal immigrant's person. I mentioned the illegal immigrant because you mentioned requring people to protect fellow
citizens.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It shouldn't really matter. See above.
|
Above argument applies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It's not necessarily about rights, so much as it is doing what's right.
|
When it comes to the law, there is almost always some kind of balancing of the rights of one person against another or society at large.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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?
|
My point is that I didn't volunteer to jump into violent altercations between strangers, and my point stands. To volunteer for something I would need to take an action to do so.
I don't want to live in anarchy, but I also don't want to live in a society where the law dictates positive duties upon me to lay down my life for strangers either. Especially when I'm not trying to make a living by risking my life in this fashion, nor am I being compensated for doing so. IOW, my life is valuable to me, and I don't want leglislatures telling me I have to throw it away in ways that I don't choose to do so.
There is something in-between anarchy, and the state holding my hand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.)
|
Yet the individual citizens may not be able to meet said requirements of such a law that would impose a positive duty. It would also be giving people a positive duty to risk their lives for others. The individual person may also see the situation and assess their best course of action differently than what the legislature deems apropriate, and unless their course of action is to inflict harm on an innocent person, I don't think that the leglislature has any business dictating what the individual must do in a dangerous, or potentially dangerous situation.
I would also say that moral standards shouldn't require a person to risk their life for a stranger when they didn't volunteer to do so.