Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Czhorat" data-source="post: 1262897" data-attributes="member: 13826">I disagree that "doing nothing" is by definition neutral. There was a real-world event almost exactly like this quite a few years ago in New York City. People were quite shocked, and the murder became a symbol for the cold-hearted uncaring nature of modern life. Let's change the scenario a bit. Instead of a gang of thugs, imagine you see someone slip off a bridge and start drowning. For no reason other than to make the example even more simple, there's a long rope sitting on the bridge, a guy in a lifeguard uniform napping across the street, and a floatation device of some kind leaning against a nearby tree. If you shrug and say "not my problem" then you bear some of the ethical responsibility for the victim's death.There IS a point at which the personal risk is no longer acceptable and would not obligate a reasonable person. If someone were being beaten by fifty men, for example, and you were all alone without access to help... well, in that case there's no reasonable chance to help. In the scenario originally described, though, it seems clear that an innocent person was about to be killed and could be rescued without a great deal of personal risk or even effort. In this case a good person is ethically obligated to do something to help.</blockquote>