If someone is drowning and you refuse to help, are you responsible for his death
I don't believe either of whether someone would/wouldn't help a drowning man, that's a decision for the person to make. To "help" or not as mentioned in the title, is a question of morality and hence if someone refuses to help with the intention of seeing the person die provided that the person watching could've helped, that person would be responsible.
What if you can't swim and there's nothing around immediately that could help you save them otherwise? Have a broken arm or leg, or in some other way unable to get into the water without putting yourself in immediate harm. Are you obligated to risk your life to save another in peril?
what do you mean by refusing to help? I mean, if you mean not jumping into the water to save the drowning person, then maybe they themselves don't even know to swim. However, if you mean not even calling the police then I think that's horrible but doesn't make you entirely responsible for their death since they were drowning not because of you, but you are partly to be blamed too because they might have a chance to be saved if you tried to help...can my stance be "partly responsible"?
It does depend on how you refused to help them . There could be many reasons behind this claim an if you refused to help because you were in danger of your safety itβs not your fault . It wouldnβt even be her/his fault if they did . My questions are how did this person get to the state of drowning ?
Thanks for elaborating my point, and how the person has landed in that state is a question for the person himself, while I don't say that pushing the person is not a reason to hold the person responsible, but The debate title makes it clear that the person is already in the state of drowning and "help" is what is questioned, which a killer wouldn't. So It is obvious that this "killer" put the person in a water body to kill the person and that's obvious for everyone. What isn't obvious is the fact that if you are a person who just randomly happened to see this person drowning, and you refuse to help, will you be responsible for the death? I prefer answering the unobvious, as it is the unobvious that make debates, not what's obvious and agreed by everyone upon.
Whatever caused him to start drowning in the first place is responsible for his death, you wouldn't have caused the death yourself and therefore aren't technically responsible. The fact that you could have prevented his death might make you morally responsible for something, but not his death. If one believes that it's a moral obligation to help the drowning person then they will have to accept some responsibility for being 'immoral' by not taking the opportunity to do what is right.
You claim that you are not responsible for his death because the cause of him starting to drown is responsible for his death, however it is completely possible for both you and the drowning cause to be mutually responsible. As an example, imagine someone was bungee jumping with two ropes. You cut one rope, and a separate person cut another. In each case, a person could argue that the other person was responsible for his death. However, your actions equally determined that he died instead of surviving. For this reason, I would claim that technically you are responsible for his death by choosing an action which resulted in his death from a set of actions in which he could not have died.
however it is completely possible for both you and the drowning cause to be mutually responsible. As an example, imagine someone was bungee jumping with two ropes. You cut one rope, and a separate person cut another.
In this instance whoever cut the last rope would be responsible. Only if the two ropes were cut simultaneously would both parties be equally responsible.
I believe that the answer to the OP's question boils down to semantics. Since the terminology used was "responsible" then a good argument can be put forward to support the affirmative. However, that same argument can then be put forward ad absurdum. For example, if you refuse to rush into a burning building or refuse to lay down in front of a tank. If the wording is altered from "responsibility" to "causation" then the answer becomes a simple no.
well if you known that person was going to drown and you saw him start to drown you would be fully responsible for his death and anyone else that saw that person struggle.
how would you like it if someone watched you drown and not help at all.
he could have slipped in from we dock or plank broke, maybe blacked out and woke up in the water and didn't know how to swim
what if that drowning person is a infant? would you go out to save the baby?
In my opinion, to be responsible for someone's death you must have caused it, and in this case the person refusing to help did not cause the death. I'm not saying that makes it okay not to help, it's just that the person not helping would be guilty of something else, that is, being an asshole.
I never said or implied that I wouldn't help a drowning person.
We may be responsible for inaction, but that doesn't make us responsible for a death. That would be like saying a doctor who legally couldn't help someone in situation is responsible for letting them die, even though it would be extremely risky and possibly turn out worse for both if they did.
PS> (edited) Look.. As a bleeding heart, I think we owe something to ourselves. I suspect a conservative would say we owe our fellowman NOTHING..
Actually, the conservative position is quite the opposite.
The conservative position is that individual action is the best way to help others ,and to make society safe and prosperous. I think conservatives and liberals tend to agree on the ends: lasting peace, universal prosperity and safety (or as close as is possible,) justice, and maximum freedom and opportunity to pursue self-actualization.
Where conservatives disagree with liberals is means. We conservatives think the role of government should be as small as possible, and the main responsibility for achieving these ends falls upon all individuals.
Applied to the scenario of the drowning man, conservative realism recognizes that the best way for the person to avoid drowning is for that individual to have taken personal responsibility for his/her own safety and to have learned how to swim or to have stayed in shallow water. Failing that, it is up to the individual bystander to save the drowning person.
Certainly conservatives recognizes that the least effective response is likely to be to call upon the government to save the drowning victim:
- - Obviously the barriers and posted warning signs were ineffective at keeping the drowning person safe.
- - The "first" responders would likely arrive too late and be hampered by excessive regulations or cumbersome protocols.
This is why conservatives favor smaller government, and why conservatives, as a group, donate more to charity than liberals.
Um, remind me again what politics even has to do with this? Oh, i'm oh-so-sorry the liberal media poisoned your brain, now get back to your overly-privileged feminist rallies, which are doing SHIT to help women that are actually oppressed, like in, hmmm... countries under Sharia Law?
Requiring someone to jump in the water themselves would be wrong for many reasons. They may be unable to swim, have a phobia, have medical reasons not to, worry it's not clean or safe, may have other responsibilities on land (like their kids), and they may be uncertain of the situation (maybe it isn't clear it's really a case of drowning).
However, expecting someone to call for help either verbally or on their phone if they have one is a reasonable expectation. Whether or not failing to call is a crime depends on the local laws, though.
That was the case in Florida where those teens recorded and laughed at a man drowning. I'm of two minds on this, honestly the blood thirsty part of me wants to hold their heads under water for a bit, the other part of me......well ok....wants to kick them repeatedly.
What makes me furious is they did NOTHING. They didn't call the police, they didn't try to get help. I can understand not going out into the water yourself, honestly a drowning person will panic and try to pull you under but to stand there and laugh and record it.....that's a kind of scum that shouldn't be in society but unfortunately isn't illegal. While I think by their actions they are responsible in some part, I don't think legally they are.
Imprisoning and rehabilitating such people that laugh while someone that they could help dies would serve a moral good. These people are clearly evil people and will darken the lives of those around them. As such it makes sense to make an effort to change these people for the better, or failing that, keeping them imprisoned. Now, I wouldn't say that they have broken a law, however they have demonstrated sadism and a disregard for human life. Such people are dangerous and need to be "fixed".
This is different from simply failing to help because of the sadism and lack of value for human life. They aren't breaking a law (and there shouldn't be a law to force their action) but they are showing themselves to be in need of serious psychological help.
Imprisoning and rehabilitating such people that laugh while someone that they could help dies would serve a moral good. These people are clearly evil people
If people do moral wrongs because they are somehow innately "evil" then how can you hope to rehabilitate them? The fact is that every culture has a different framework of acceptable morality and this framework is not chosen by the "evil" doer. They are simply expected to conform to cultural expectations of morality and ignore their own interpretations. When you talk about rehabilitation what you are actually talking about is brainwashing them. Perhaps that might even have some effect if you catch them as children. But as adult offenders who have been around the prison system they are more likely to despise their own culture than be positively influenced by it.
Except the debate is not about how someone should be punished: rather it is just about whether or not someone is directly responsible. If someone dropped a plate by accident, then there would be no reason to punish them since it was not malicious. However, they are still technically responsible for breaking the plate. Likewise, there may be a valid reason for inactivity, such as a fear of the drowning person sinking you, however you are still responsible even though you should'nt be punished.
Well... if you're not the reason that they're drowning then why would you be responsible for their death? I would not go help them because I am not a strong enough swimmer to go out, save someone who is struggling, and then return us both to safety. That does not make their death my fault
You're only responsible for yourself in life, not for anyone else.
Though if you can help then you should but if you just can't help, if you fear drowning yourself, can't swim or something like that then it's okay, it depends on why you didn't help.
But no, I don't think someone is responsible for someone else's death in such a case.
It depends on the situation. If the drowning person is in a pool and you can reach them will a rescue tool and not in any way risk your own life but instead you do nothing to help them then of course you're responsible if they drown.
If you're standing on a beach and a person equal to you or larger in size than you are is drowning then you have to assess the risk. If you're not a good swimmer it makes no sense to swim out to a drowning person who could pull you down with them. In that situation it actually makes more sense to wait for them to become unconscious and then if possible grab them from behind or by the hair and pull them to shore.
If you're a trained lifeguard then you know how to save a drowning person. Approach them from underwater and turn them away from you and then reach over their shoulder and carry them to shore on your hip or pull them by their hair.
If you're a member of a pack of punks who see a man drowning and instead of trying to do something to save him they ridicule him and laugh at him while he dies, you should go to prison.
I mean, kinda not really. Yes, if you were friends with that person and swimming with that person and he starts drowning and you swim away. No, if you were walking on the beach and see a person drowning and walk away, not really. You are definitely responsible if you were the lifeguard.
I personally believe that if someone was taught growing up that they should always help others, and that person feels like its their moral obligation, and you do try to save that person then they wouldn't be responsible. If that is not the case and you are just watching someone drown, well then yes you should be responsible for the person death because, you knew you could of called for help or jumped in and save them but you didn't therefore you are responsible for his death. Not to mention if you pull out your phone and instead of calling 911 you video tape it, you should be responsible. I don't expect everyone to carry a rope on them, but you should at least throw something that floats. At least make a effort.
At the very least you should be singled out and held responsible at a major concert by your identifier....If.....that is, they really want to admit being an accessory after the fact to a possible murder charge as you insinuate...And that's a pretty big If...
Responsibility, however, would be subject of the individual(morally speaking), so why the fuck didn't YOU do anything about it? YOU saw it, YOU saw me do nothing, what about your responsiblity?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
So are you a good man permitting evil?
Or are you an evil man permitting evil?
But once again we are drawn into the perspective of the individual (good, evil).
And we can round and round the mythical moral tree....
Or you could just stop pulling child-like, forked questions, clearly dependant on circumstance and context, out of your ass and come up with something original....
(Try: Stop drinking tiny wines and listening to Phil Collins)
In my opinion, it depends on the circumstances. If you risk your own life to help this person, you might be considered a coward or whatever else. It's more of an issue of your personal bravery and willingness to help someone.
Or it could be that this is a really terrible person. If, say, Hitler or H.H. Holmes was the one drowning, I sure as Hades wouldn't be wanting to help them.
But the only way I'd say to be actually responsible for the death is to do it yourself, or if you could actually help them without risking a life yet you still refused.
No, I am not responsible for his death, suppose he was surrounded by sharks, and he is begging for help, even if I did try, it would be no use, his fate is already sealed, and if I try to be a hero, we would both end up dying.
He could have deserved it, we have bad guys who rummage the streets, this guys death would have been a good cause to the human race, we won't have idiots like him playing around in the ocean.
His own negligence to his stupidity brought him to his doom, if he was drowning because he couldn't swim, WHY did he jump in the water in the first place!! And if he was drowning because of other causes, he should know that the ocean is not a playground!!.
I'd say yes. If you were capable of saving someone that later dies and didn't, you share responsibility for their death.
I can't think of any situation where not helping someone should be a punishable offense though. It might say something about your character, but we don't put people on trial for not holding a popular set of beliefs... right?
Not directly. Assuming that you could have helped in any way then that includes running or calling help. Now because they could live or die even if willing help came you didnβt kill them but the intent could considered be malicious. So you put their life at risk with malicious intent. Not murder but jail time for sure
In some way you are responsible for their death since you did not help them.it just shows us your true colors,a person is dying and you are refusing to help that is like putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and you will live with that guilt for the rest of your life.help the person no matter how much you hate them
I think that you shouldn't be required by law, or any other standard to save his life. Let me give you an example: Let's say I have an extremely rare blood type, but one day, somebody is dying and desperately needs a blood transfusion, and I'm the only one that can give it, but the process of extracting the blood is potentially deadly. Should I have to risk my life by law just so somebody else can live?
don't be one these determinist science nerd sociopaths
You are quite literally one of the most nauseatingly stupid people I have ever met. You are so stupid that you associate science with sociopathy, in a way you are literally saying "knowledge is insanity and ignorance is compassion." Also only worthless little kids who will never amount to anything and the adults they grow into think that science is "for nerds". And lastly, it is indicative of nothing but pure weakness if you think accepting determinism means that you don't take action. You need an ideological crutch, that's all it is, you can't handle reality because you're a bitch and by your own admission you don't know shit because you are dismissive of science itself and think it's "nerdy"