Your moral obligation to help innocents at risk?

[gddyup]

I think it boils down to what are the odds that you will not make things worse, that you can actually help, and come through alive and healthy. Weigh those factors and you should get the answer to go or no go.

Short and sweet, that is a very good summation.

[joab]

I'm not opening a can of worms here, but, who's to say that the person in need of your help is one who has not decided to protect themselves? It's more than possible that the victim in question may just have missed the signs and has not had the opportunity to get his protection, in whatever form that may be, into play in a reasonable amount of time in order to stop the process?

There seems to be an attitude here that depends on supposition that the person is to stupid to arm themselves.
What if the person is 20 years old, what if he or she is a Lautenberg victim, or had been convicted of a felony many years ago

About two weeks after I turned 18 I got into a bad fight with a kid that was 17 and 10 months old.
I drew a good judge who agreed to with hold adjudication if I joined the army.

If not, in all likelihood, I would have been convicted of a violent felony and 25 years later would not be allowed to own a gun.

If you agree that you have an obligation to help those in need.
Should you stop to analyze whether that person has chosen to be a victim or has has that choice made for them?

[Dust_Devil]

Depends on the situation.

Morally one should always help another in danger, but it must be put in consideration that how much good will you be doing if you put your own life at risk, how much risk and what about your own family's loss because you wanted to play hero.

Let's look at something not involving a gun fight.
Let's say you saw someone fall off a boat in a lake. The person has no life vest and cannot swim.
You knowing how to swim, have a moral right to jump in the lake and try to save the victim.
But what if you didn't know how to swim yourself or the person drowning was caught in a flood of rushing waters and jumping in yourself without proper equipment could mean death for yourself. At that point, all you can do is call for help and painfully watch.

[kennybs plbg]

At that point, all you can do is call for help and painfully watch.

No at that point I'd be looking for a rope, ladder, pole, anything, but I could not just painfully watch. I don't think most people would or could, well maybe a few here could.

kenny b

[Dust_Devil]

No at that point I'd be looking for a rope, ladder, pole, anything, but I could not just painfully watch. I don't think most people would or could, well maybe a few here could.

kenny b

You are right, but I was trying to say after all one could do. Of course if the person is that close to you where you can grab a tree branch or something, then of course at least try that or something, but when a person is drowning, how much time do you expect to be running around looking for a rope, ladder, pole conveniently sitting on the shore by a lake.

[joab]

I understand what DD meant and he is correct.
There will be times where, in spite of our good intentions and belief in our obligation to help, all we can do is watch the train wreck.
And feel bad about it

If we accept that in a life or death situation we will do all that we can.
We must also accept that sometimes it won't be enough.

And dying in a hopeless situation just to prove that I will help does nobody any good

[kemasa]

Sorry to disagree, but it is never the case that all you can do is to watch the train wreck. You can call for help, even if it is after the fact, you can be a witness to help figure out what happened and perhaps preventing it from happening again, you can help the people suffering, even those not directly involved, you can help secure the area and keep it from getting worse, etc.

Yes, it is true that you can not always save someone and you will do no good by dying just to say that you tried to save them since that results in just another death.

You need to think before acting to ensure that you are doing good. For example, if you see several people down in an enclosed room, it might be best to not go in and instead just call for help and keep others out unless they have protection and/or an air supply.

[joab]

Sorry to disagree, but it is never the case that all you can do is to watch the train wreck. You can call for help, even if it is after the fact, you can be a witness to help figure out what happened and perhaps preventing it from happening again, you can help the people suffering, even those not directly involved, you can help secure the area and keep it from getting worse, etc.

Whatever you do after the train wreck is a different issue, separate from the one being discussed.
Even the worst coward can be a good witness , pull crowd control or be a mental health counselor.

[kemasa]

The worst coward will just turn and go the other way and not be a witness at all, nor do anything else. You might not be able to stop some harm by being there, but you might be able to reduce some.

[joab]

I believe that you are splitting frog hairs.

The question posed was what if any obligation do we have to help/defend others.
Not what actions should be taken after we fail to, or are not able to, act

[kemasa]

It is all part of the question as there is not a time limit. I also answered the question in saying that you should do all that you can without putting yourself in too much risk. There are too many shades of gray to give a specific answer and you need to make sure that you are helping the person in need before acting, rather than helping the wrong person.

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?

[Derius_T]

USP45usp: +1 to your post #117.

And for Glenn, I wrote:

I guess it is in part how you were raised, and what is in your heart. It has nothing to do with machoism, or heroism, or chest thumping, ect. It has to do with the RIGHT THING TO DO, morally, ethically, and to remain civilized human beings.

It is not in my mind to stop to think about danger to self when someone is dying right in front of me. You pray to God almighty to preserve them and you, and you do what needs to be done to help. I could not live with myself knowing I could have at least TRIED to help but did nothing. I would be a discrace.

Half of what is wrong with society today is that people have no moral fiber. They have no sense of honor, no sense of duty, and no compassion for their fellow man.

If you choose not to believe, fine thats your choice. You can sit and read your books and analyze all your facts and data, and think everything to death if you want. Meanwhile someone dies while you assess the risks involved. My point was that if everyone did that, no one would ever get helped. If eveyone thought about self preservation above helping others in crisis, this world would be an even worse place. I speak from personal experiences in my own life. There are others on this board who have put themselves in harms way for others, and do so everyday. Why do they do it? Who gives a rats *** WHY they do it. THEY DO IT. Thats all that matters.

And I sort of get your point, that you don't think people would ABSOLUTELY, EVERYTIME, risk thier lives to save someone else, that there are "factors" to morality and ethics and bravery.

I'm just really, really glad you are wrong......

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[stephen426]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I don't have time right now to read through 6 pages of responses...

If someone's life is in danger and there is a good chance to save that person without endangering others(multiple bystanders or a distant shot), I would most probably act. If we are talking about preventing a property crime (someone else's, not my own), I would not draw my gun. I would call the police and try to be a good witness, but using lethal force to protect someone else's property does not make much sense to me. Now if this was a convenience store type robbery and the robber was waving a gun around at everyone who was in the store, I would consider that a potential deadly threat and probably pop him in the melon!

Inaction is not always the same as cowardice. You really have to think of your family and the long term risks before jumping in to play hero. With the power of the internet, how hard would it be for gang bangers to find where you live and avenge their fallen brother? What about the civil law suits that are sure to follow because you killed "someone's precious baby who never meant to harm no body"?

Like I said, life or death situations dictate that one take action to aid another person who is not able to defend themself. I am not a police officer and my concealed weapons permit does not make me a free lance police officer. Property crimes will have to be handled by the police which I will be glad to call.

[czc3513]

I quote myself.

I dont know. I dont carry and I have not seen any action.
But I do 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)


Pick your color.

[joab]

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?

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

[kemasa]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

[joab]

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.

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.

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

[gddyup]

The one constant in life is that there are absolutely no absolutes.

There most certainly are!!!!

Death and taxes....

[butch50]

The one absolute is that there are no absolutes? Is that what I am reading?

[joab]

There most certainly are!!!!

Death and taxes.

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?

Absolutely

[StormTrooper]

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.

[gddyup]

Walt Disney's head is frozen and buried under the castle

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

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

All in good fun brother!

[czc3513]

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.