Getting Back To Throwing The Life Preserver

[Noo Yawk]

[ QUOTE ]
The drowning man fell. Change the billionaire to something else. You are on your way to make X dollars on a deal where being two minutes late will blow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't change anything. Climb the steps and throw him the life preserver. Given the assumption that you have no way of getting help or calling to ensure that this persons life is saved, failing to help a person whose life is in immediate and imminent danger is wrong. Period. legally or otherwise.

[Mike Gallo]

One night I was on my way to Atlantic City for a tournament. I have just enough time to get to the tournament or it would sell out and I would not make it in time.

Right before my eyes I witnessed a horrible accident. I could have pulled over to see if anyone suffered any injuries however I proceeded to the tournament. I did call the state police to advise them of the accident, however I just kept going.

I did this for two reasons.

1) I do not have any first aid training and if anyone did get hurt, I could do nothing about it.

2) I do not like getting locked out of a tournament.

Ironically I made it to the tournament and they sold out by the time I got there. I still feel I made the correct decision.

As far as the drowning man goes, I would most likely throw him a life line.

[Mike Gallo]

My clinical opinion is that you have WAY too much time on your hands.
Mr Sklansky has too much time on his hands, because he chooses to have too much time.

Remember hes a super genius who can do whatever he wants, however plays poker because he doesnt want to do anything else.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

or is Chesspain right, you simply have too much time on your hands?

C'mon Dave, what is the OFFICIAL answer from the EXPOIT?

al

[Peter Harris]

if you don't save the guy and walk past, you're not a murderer. In fact, in some situations, not acting is safest, as you must be sure to preserve your own safety first. Calling a professional rescue service is a good idea.

However, just walking by will be a criminal act in some places, such as France, where one must report and be present at the scene of ANY accident witnessed by oneself.

in situation B, by being prepared to save the person and then choosing not to for a sum of money (or any alternate situation) simply shows you are a person of loose morality. You'd prefer person A to have less chance of survival so oneself has a better chance of a nice situation occuring.

If you can live with that, good for you. If you can't, then save a life.

It's an independent decision, i side with civil liberty.

Regards,
Pete Harris

[TripleH68]

I was once on the way to a golf tournament. About one mile from the course I witnessed an elderly woman walking down the sidewalk trip and take a hard fall. I stopped, helped her to her porch(next door), called rescue and waited with her until they arrived. It was the decent and honorable thing to do. I would save the drowning person definitely.

As a side note, sometimes the casino makes me feel very sad. So many people losing money the need just to feed their fix. Of course I am willing to take their money at the poker table...and sometime this causes dissonance.

[cnfuzzd]

i stay away from all forms of water. Its not compatible with the nefarious fire demons of the underworld.

I didnt say i wouldn't help him, merely that i couldnt positively say that i would.

Im glad there are people like you though that keep my meager faith in this failed experiment called life going, even if i think you are all deluded.

and yes, i do wish peace on the world. In a world filled with stupid people though, its sometimes hard not to pray for nuclear devestation. See Comedy of Hate for more.

peace

john nickle

[scottjack]

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes the casino makes me feel very sad. So many people losing money the need just to feed their fix. Of course I am willing to take their money at the poker table...and sometime this causes dissonance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that....a fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place....if they weren't losing it to me, they'd be losing it to someone else, or doing something else to part with it.

In regard to the lifeline question:

Local legalities aside, I don't think there is any moral obligation to assist the guy in the water. Whatever action makes someone the happiest, or most content, is what is going to dictate what a given person chooses to do.

If someone is happiest after having done the 'right' thing by helping the person in the water, that's what they'll choose to do. If a person gains contentment by just walking by and not assisting in any way, then that's just fine for them to do that. If the decision is made to accept the monetary offer, then that person is deciding that their happiness is maximized more by taking the money than by helping the person in the water.

The bottom line is that people are selfish, and the choices thay make and the actions they take will be those that best satisfies their need to be happy inside, whether their internal happiness comes to them from money, or from helping someone.

[cnfuzzd]

<<<Because he stated that he would effectively kill someone if given $1000 and then ended his post with the word "peace". After stating such a horrible thing, how can he write "peace"? >>>>

I didnt say "universal love and happiness" I said peace. The state of non-conflict. Did the person in the water do something in thier life that deserves death. Possibly. POssibly i might save him. I am just saying that, given the paradigm i view the world through i dont think there is any prima facia obligation to save human life. I have done several things in my life that i feel would warrent death, (not kidding, which is sad really) yet i continue to live. Others i know havent deserved to die, yet did. Grafting moral frameworks onto cold reality is simply trying to delude one's self as to the nature of reality. Life is Suffering.

<<<If your child drowned and you later found out that someone could have saved him/her quite easily, but didn't do so because he/she was given $1000 not to do so, would you want to punch him/her? Of course you would. By your logic, then, you wouldn't save a stranger if you were placed in the same situation because you have "aggressive tendencies".

As a side, the reason I get all riled up is because it disgusts me when someone is willing to trade the life of another for money. Whether the person drowning is a stranger or not is irrelevant to me. That person is someone elses son/daughter/mother/father/friend/whatever. That person is another human being. >>>

Hell yeah i would. I would in fact, probably try to kill them. But we already know that i dont follow standard moral theory.

<<<
Sigh. I wasn't talking about the drowning person. I was talking about the poster who would refuse to save the drowning person if given $1000.

-- Homer

EDIT -- I also want to say that I find it amusing that you would question why I would want to punch the hitman instead of questioning the hitman himself. >>>

I wish i could be cool enough to be a hitman. I agree that it is odd that the responder picked you to respond to. Maybe he or she is proud that i am standing up for moral degeneracy.

tranquility

john nickle

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
The drowning man fell. Change the billionaire to something else. You are on your way to make X dollars on a deal where being two minutes late will blow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this scenario. You buy a lottery ticket and win 300 million dollars. The lottery company gives you two choices. You may either receive all 300 million over twenty years, or receive 100 million instantly. If you choose to receive 100 million instantly, the company will go out of business and hundreds of people will lose their jobs. What would a moral person do? What would someone interested only in material gain do?

My point is that in both my example and your example, it doesn't matter whether you are interested in making the most money or being the most moral. They lead you to the same conclusion. If you save the drowning man, you stand to gain far more than a thousand dollars. One might even argue that what you would gain is invaluable. Such an act is held so highly in the minds of the moral portion of the population that you would have endless permanent reserves of good will and trust.

I find it interesting to note, however, that if a large enough percentage of the population looked at these situations as opportunities for material gain, it would no longer be correct to save the man if you too held this viewpoint. Your potential invaluable stores of trust provided by moral people would have been eroded enough to make even one thousand dollars more appealing.

I agree that it's appropriate to take morality to its logical extreme, and I argue that doing so proves the entire philosophy counter-productive, self-defeating, and *illogical*.

Brett