[Evan Thomas]

The topic of the thread isn't "Do you have a moral duty to intervene?" but:

Originally Posted by .22lr

What level of risk [to yourself and innocent bystanders] will you accept in the defense of a stranger?

Originally Posted by Glenn Bartley

As for those of you telling others there are no moral obligations to enter a fight, are you telling others what are their moral obligations based upon your own conception of morality? If so, why do you imagine yourself qualified to tell others what should be their own standard of morality? As for myself, I would likely feel it a moral obligation to assist a young child I saw being raped...

As Dr. Meyer has pointed out in many threads on this general subject, research on altruism, "pro-social behavior," shows that we tend to confuse our emotional responses to a situation, such as our (perhaps biologically based) drive to protect children, and less altruistic motivations such as our wish to be seen as heroic, with moral imperatives. (For example, see his detailed analysis here.)

You're not, in fact, morally obliged to enter a fight. There are times, certainly, when it would be morally permissible, even admirable, to do so. (If you believe that anyone here has said that he or she wouldn't intervene to help a child who was obviously being harmed, I think you haven't been reading very carefully. In any case, a situation involving a child is likely to be -- comparatively -- unambiguous.) But the point is that you are responsible for all the consequences of your actions, both good and bad, and you do have a moral obligation to weigh both sets of possible consequences before you act.

I think Mr. Roberts summed it up nicely:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The really absurd thing about the "reductio ad waffle house" argument is that it implies you are somehow guilty for the acts of another (the shooter) by not acting; but if you do act and kill some innocent, you are absolved of the guilt because of your intentions.

That pretty much stands on its head every concept of personal responsibility I've ever heard.

To reiterate what has been pretty well beaten to death in the other recent threads on this subject, good intentions don't absolve you from moral, or legal, or financial responsibility for any negative consequences of your actions.

As long as you're willing and able to accept that, you're good to go, as far as I'm concerned.

But the results, so far, of the poll in this thread indicate that many respondents aren't thinking this through very carefully:

I am willing to place my finances at risk (possible being sued) = 0%

I am willing to risk my life and increase risk for bystanders[Vanya's emphasis]. (will risk a gunfight) = 23.08%

Can we say "disconnect" here?