| A lot of the times you see in the news an assault or mugging or something else is going on and even though there are witnesses they do not offer their help to the victim. Many people argue that what they're doing (or rather not doing) is highly immoral and that it should be a legally punishable offense. While I do agree that a crime happening in broad daylight and people not batting an eye to it is not a very pleasant sight, there's a thing to this argument that just doesn't sit well with me. Making inaction legally punishable, if you think the contrapositive, is the same as making action obligatory, and in some instances I can't see myself agreeing to it. If there are multiple people, then sure you'll most likely overcome the assailant if you work together. But in a dark alley where you're the only witness you'll have about the same chance as the victim himself/herself if you wish to intervene. What do you think? Lastly I'd like it if you guys can separate when you're making a case in regards to morality and in regards to legality which will hopefully prevent misunderstandings. |
AuronMay 18, 2019 10:30 AM
 |
Orhunaa said: If a mugging or assault is happening, it would depend on the situation. If there are tons of people around I will try to interfere. With others around there might be a pack mentality and someone else might jump in to help as well(Like you said). I will never not intervene if there are others around. If I'm the only bystander, I will mostly just call the police and wait till the mugger/assaulter is gone because chances are, they'll get me too(I'm 5'7 140lbs) If I was a gun owner with a conceal permit. I would be more inclined to do something in the back alley situation. But I don't own a gun. I also don't go outside so that will never happen. That being said, if you're in a public place and you do nothing, how will they pin point each person who "saw." Either situation, I don't think it's right to punish the bystanders. You could just aggravate the assailant, next thing you know you've got two dead people and a killer on the loose with no witnesses.A lot of the times you see in the news an assault or mugging or something else is going on and even though there are witnesses they do not offer their help to the victim. Many people argue that what they're doing (or rather not doing) is highly immoral and that it should be a legally punishable offense. While I do agree that a crime happening in broad daylight and people not batting an eye to it is not a very pleasant sight, there's a thing to this argument that just doesn't sit well with me. Making inaction legally punishable, if you think the contrapositive, is the same as making action obligatory, and in some instances I can't see myself agreeing to it. If there are multiple people, then sure you'll most likely overcome the assailant if you work together. But in a dark alley where you're the only witness you'll have about the same chance as the victim himself/herself if you wish to intervene. What do you think? Lastly I'd like it if you guys can seperate when you're making a case in regards to morality and in regards to legality which will hopefully prevent misunderstandings. |
| “The world is full of nice people. If you can't find one, be one.” ― Nishan Panwar 8=D ~ O: |
| No, wtf? You should not be obligated to put yourself in danger to help someone you don't even know. |
 What's the difference? |
| I'm not sure if negative enforcement for those who don't intervene would be better than postive enforcement for those who do intervene, in this case. This is definetly an interesting question though. I think if bystanders who don't intervene do get punished, it would have to be very much so on a case by case basis. |
 |
| no but those who refuse to help in those situations are definitely not the best kind of people. Then again on the flipside you have to consider maybe they don't want to put themselves in danger. So i can see both sides of the argument. If you can stand in you should but expecting people to risk themselves just won't work |
| You are not a trained professional. All that is required of you as a decent respectable human being is to alert the relevant authorities police or emergency, depending on the circumstance. Intervention could escalate the situation all the way up to lethal force. If the perpetrator kills one of you that makes you a witness and we all know dead men tell no tales. If you kill or injure them, then you are opened up to liabilities yourself, which you may or may not get lucky with. Perhaps the victim is terrified of retaliation and doesn't corroborate your story? You see, no good deed goes unpunished. |
 |
| I definitely think you should do something, but no it's not illegal. If anything it's acts of heroism that are considerd 'bad' in this world. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| No. Inaction should never be a punishable offense. People tend to say society can only function through the cooperation of its citizens, but even if that's the irrefutable truth any system that tries to FORCE the act of cooperation out of me as my "social duty" or face punishment otherwise is a bullshit system. |
HyperLMay 18, 2019 10:41 AM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| Of course it is considered illegal to not even call the cops, right? You do have some duties as a civilian. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Dinoceros said: If I was a gun owner with a conceal permit. I would be more inclined to do something in the back alley situation. But I don't own a gun. I also don't go outside so that will never happen. But that'd just get you in trouble, as @Soverign rightfully put. Not everything goes preferably in the courtroom @Gan_water Yeah, I don't think many people would oppose calling cops, I mean it doesn't risk your well-being after all. But there may be times when victim won't be saved without immediate action. In those cases can someone really be relieved of any burden by simply calling the cops? |
|
Orhunaa said: Partially why I don't own a gun. Being a minority also doesn't help. Don't need another reason for cops to randomly blast me.Dinoceros said: If I was a gun owner with a conceal permit. I would be more inclined to do something in the back alley situation. But I don't own a gun. I also don't go outside so that will never happen. But that'd just get you in trouble, as @Soverign rightfully put. Not everything goes preferably in the courtroom @Gan_water Yeah, I don't think many people would oppose calling cops, I mean it doesn't risk your well-being after all. But there may be times when victim won't be saved without immediate action. In those cases can someone really be relieved of any burden by simply calling the cops? |
| “The world is full of nice people. If you can't find one, be one.” ― Nishan Panwar 8=D ~ O: |
Orhunaa said: @Gan_water Yeah, I don't think many people would oppose calling cops, I mean it doesn't risk your well-being after all. But there may be times when victim won't be saved without immediate action. In those cases can someone really be relieved of any burden by simply calling the cops? It's better than nothing. You never know what you might be capable of in the heat of the moment so just do your best. If you have a 'fight or flight' reaction then sometimes even a little action is best. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| We'll be forced to stretch it to dictatorial regimes with complicit public. Think about the Germans and the Nazis. The people stood by, knowing what was happening, and did nothing. Same story with Russians and the gulag, except this time fear was a major factor and that adds another layer of complexity: Russians knew they could do something if they stuck together but they never managed it, should they be culpable? The radius of bystanders needs to be defined. Who exactly is a bystander? In a certain sense, the government is the biggest bystander of all, because most crimes could be prevented if only the government made the right policy at the right time. It's not unusual to see crime as a direct result of government's inaction. The legal side of it is hairy. The moral side is much clearer: if you knew you could stop it but didn't, your conscience should be stained. |
HungryForQuality said: Thanakos said: We'll be forced to stretch it to dictatorial regimes with complicit public. Think about the Germans and the Nazis. The people stood by, knowing what was happening, and did nothing. Same story with Russians and the gulag, except this time fear was a major factor and that adds another layer of complexity: Russians knew they could do something if they stuck together but they never managed it, should they be culpable? The radius of bystanders needs to be defined. Who exactly is a bystander? In a certain sense, the government is the biggest bystander of all, because most crimes could be prevented if only the government made the right policy at the right time. It's not unusual to see crime as a direct result of government's inaction. The legal side of it is hairy. The moral side is much clearer: if you knew you could stop it but didn't, your conscience should be stained. Huh. I wonder how stained my conscience would be by that standard. That's some food for thought ain't it? You thought it was normal. That was your world. That's why your conscience is clear. |
| The problem with this is that its real easy to say that you would step in and stop whatever is happening, but in reality many of us would be a bystander due to fear of repercussions |
| Hell to the no. I'm not putting my life at risk to try and protect some stranger; I'll just call the police if I feel the need. (Or if I'm feeling heroic, I may choose to intervene if the risk isn't too great.) |
 |
Maneki-Mew said: In some cases yes. It's understandble that you won't play the superhero and get yourself in danger, but at least you could call the police from safe distance etc. Thanakos said: We'll be forced to stretch it to dictatorial regimes with complicit public. Think about the Germans and the Nazis. The people stood by, knowing what was happening, and did nothing. Totalitarian systems are another thing tho. People knew they and their whole family will be transported into concentration camps and perceived as a political enemy themselves. I mean, it's naturally the right and very brave thing to actual help the victims of such a system, but think twice. Not so many people would endanger their own life, kids, spouse, parents, siblings without a second thought for a person they might not know or not know well. It's actually a real dilemma and harder than it sounds like, if you are sitting in safety and wealth. That'd be true for Russians, I'll give you that. But the Germans saw the rise of antisemitism and how the far right took off. They supported them throughout and even when the Nazis became the ruling party, they were mostly fine with it. The Nazis started out with benign discrimination, like kicking Jews out of their jobs, and things came to a boil with the Kristallnacht, and condemnation was seen only then. Arguably, it was lukewarm because the Nazis didn't stop there. The rounding up of Jews never stopped. Even the Reservists who had a direct hand in the holocaust, and who largely weren't Nazis, knew what fate awaited Jews in the concentration camps and yet they transported them and even killed them in some actions. Did they face any repercussions in case they refused to carry out their orders? No. You should check out 'Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland'. It's an excellent study in how complicity, peer pressure, careerism, and to some extent, obedience to authority, played a role in bringing about the holocaust. Given the facts, there should've been a lot more reservists who refused to partake, but only a handful did. The Germans back home weren't blissfully unaware of all that was happening either. They had joined in on the antisemitism without becoming killers themselves. They disapproved of actions like Kristallnacht and they would've disapproved the holocaust too had it not been done in a neat, orderly, manner which didn't incite a carnal distaste for violence. The Reservists had the same story; they were more eager to transport Jews to concentration camps than actually killing them, because that's human nature. But even transportation was complicity. Nodding to whatever the Nazis did as long as it didn't incite disgust was complicity too. Of course there were many Germans who tried to help Jews in their own ways, and some even faced dire consequences for it, but it doesn't excuse the fact that majority of the Germans were fine... complicit. You are talking about people who wanted to help but couldn't, but as far I know the story of holocaust, I know people who simply ignored whatever was happening because it didn't personally affect them -- the worst form of a bystander. If we accept OP's proposal that bystanders should be (legally) culpable, then the entire nation needed to withstand trial. I'm not saying there are no exculpating arguments for their willful ignorance, but it is a bystander behavior, it is complicity, and therefore meets our criteria of holding them guilty. deg said: but you said that fear complicates things though although im sure a lot of people feel guilty or regret (or just empathy) so peoples conscience are usually stained already EDIT: but i understand that moral code, like its the same with every gun violence in USA for example they just send "Thoughts and Prayers" lol and thats it, heck a lot of people especially young people do not vote globally and that leads to things like Brexit morally in this modern world you can help without putting yourself in danger I'm talking about legal culpability in the first two paragraphs. |
ThanakosMay 18, 2019 5:59 PM
| yeah it's pretty fucked up when there's a horrific incident and everyone kinda just stands around or their first instinct is to pull out their cellphone cameras. |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| I've read all of your posts and generally good points were made. Thank you. @xaow amd @shadowblaster5 I think your suggestion of positive enforcement for those who do take action is very reasonable. There are many logical reasons why one wouldn't want to intervene (like opening up liabilities for oneself or the fear of ending up as the victim) so making them legally accountable seems irrational. @Bara_no_Uta Yes, there are many ways in which intervention to a crime can go wrong for you, as you and many people have stated. Then, given all those factors against you, how can one determine when intervention is "Safe to do so"? It's very convenient to say "Do it when you know you can be of help." but that's a moot point because you never know for certain what you might be capable of. @Thanakos You bring up a very good point. Political crimes add a whole another layer of complexity to the discussion. My history isn't all that great so I must ask, did the Reservists really face no serious repurcussions if they rejected to partake in it? The scale of Holocaust is obviously much much larger than an assault, so the consequences of refusing to transport them should be much more severe to justify inaction. Anything less than threat to their and/or their family's lives wouldn't suffice as far as I'm concerned. |
AuronMay 19, 2019 6:32 AM
|
| if civilians were to be expected to act when a crime is happening, what use of police force? they exist to protect us from harm when a crime is happening around. that's also the reason we pay taxes though. my opinion is just let the police do works for their donuts. prevention is the best course though. so, if you can prevent a crime from happening in the first place, it's much better than you trying to act heroic when a crime is happening. |
 |
Orhunaa said: @Thanakos You bring up a very good point. Political crimes add a whole another layer of complexity to the discussion. My history isn't all that great so I must ask, did the Reservists really face no serious repurcussions if they rejected to partake in it? The scale of Holocaust is obviously much much larger than an assault, so the consequences of refusing to transport them should be much more severe to justify inaction. Anything less than threat to their and/or their family's lives wouldn't suffice as far as I'm concerned. Quoting directly from chapter 18 'Ordinary Men' (and yes the book is pirated because I'm poor as shit and this book is not even available in my third world shithole): Finding more specific examples of how Reservists were let go due to breach of duty would be a bit of pain, but rest assured, not one of those 20% received any kind of punishment. |
| Ensuring your own safety should take precedence over ensuring the safety of others. If you're in a gas station and brotha' robbing it got a shotgun and you only have a knife, hiding someplace is common sense. |
| “Loddfafnir, listen to my counsel: You will fare well if you follow it, It will help you much if you heed it. If aware that another is wicked, say so: Make no truce or treaty with foes.” - Havamal 127 |
No. And you especially don't break up catfights. |
  |
| I can understand some people are afraid to get involved directly. But not even calling anyone? That's horrible. There was a time (the sixties?) when in New York a woman was raped and murdered. It took a few hours. Some people saw it from their window (38, I think). No one bothered to call the police. You can't say they felt threatened (and no, it's not the last case) |
 |
More topics from this board
» What do you think of men who act like it's manly to disregard their health or well-being?fleurbleue - 12 hours ago |
40 |
by RunariNoctis
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Do the well-known stereotypes associated with people from your country actually apply to you? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Oct 8 |
97 |
by auroraloose
»»
27 minutes ago |
|
» Are you able to learn from your mistakes?RobertBobert - 8 hours ago |
4 |
by Tawaney
»»
37 minutes ago |
|
» What's the craziest or creepiest thing you've heard a stranger say?TheBlockernator - Sep 26 |
26 |
by Tawaney
»»
38 minutes ago |
|
» Silly ways of making moneytraed - Oct 10 |
21 |
by Tawaney
»»
42 minutes ago |