homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Should you be required by law to be a good Samaritan? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Should you be required by law to be a good Samaritan?
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are required to be one in Germany: Three charged for not helping.

quote:
The court...handed out fines of between 2,400 and 3,600 euros ($2,870 and $4,300) to the three defendants on Monday. Prosecutors claimed that a 39-year-old woman and two men, aged 55 and 61, failed to provide help
To my mind, it is reasonable to ask people to care for each other. Helps a society to be civil. I would like people to do it because they ate decent, and think 'why not' respond with censure if they don't. The amounts of fines means it is taken quite seriously doesn't it? I know it infringes on freedom to force the giving of aid, but we force so many other things. Why not this?

[ 19. September 2017, 00:44: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11160 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Presumably we contrast this with this case where a group of teens saw a man walk into a lake and die and videoed themselves making fun of him rather than doing anything to help. From that article, some US states do have a law requiring people to offer assistance.
Posts: 4893 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fuck. People suck, bring on the apocalypse, we are a blight on this planet.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17087 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To my mind, it is reasonable to ask people to care for each other. Helps a society to be civil. I would like people to do it because they ate decent, and think 'why not' respond with censure if they don't.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to take care of each other. Forcing them to do so feels like a step too far.

I have deep misgivings against any attempt by government to force people to be actively good (as opposed to banning evil, such as killing or theft). For one thing, who defines "good"? There are plenty of people in the world who I'm sure neither of us would want to have the power to command us to behave in the way they deem good.

And how much help would a Good Samaritan have to offer in order to avoid a fine? Would calling an ambulance be enough, or would we have to go the whole hog and carry the injured person to the nearest hospital then pay all his medical bills? Does the person have to be seriously injured, or just unwell? For that matter, would they have to be injured at all or would your "force people to care for each other" law compel us to feed, bathe and house every homeless person we happen to walk past?

But yeah, my main concern is around giving government the power to force us all to live according to a specific set of morals.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29940 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@lilBuddha, our synergistic systems of socialization, institutions suck. And blow. Evil. And good. How can it be otherwise? Our strength is our weakness, our appalling long crevassed troughs will be accompanied by awesome sharp peaks.

[ 19. September 2017, 09:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16988 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To my mind, it is reasonable to ask people to care for each other.

I suppose my concern is that it's not always going to be the case that the person asked to care is the best-qualified person to care or the person for whom caring is least inconvenient. Caring is an imperfect duty, meaning that while we should do it it's not clear where the limits of our responsibilities lie since we cannot give care to everybody who needs it. I think it's problematic to make imperfect duties legally enforceable.

On the other hand, if you have widely known and accepted conventions about how you allocate a duty of care to strangers needing help then you can say who did and didn't ignore their duties.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10411 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Marvin wrote:

quote:
And how much help would a Good Samaritan have to offer in order to avoid a fine? Would calling an ambulance be enough, or would we have to go the whole hog and carry the injured person to the nearest hospital then pay all his medical bills? Does the person have to be seriously injured, or just unwell? For that matter, would they have to be injured at all or would your "force people to care for each other" law compel us to feed, bathe and house every homeless person we happen to walk past?

Yes. The scenarios are endless, really. What if I accidently leave my passport at a restaurant, and while rushing back to get it, I see a drunk guy staggering through the middle of the road? Do I have to stop and help him get off the road, even if it increases the risk of losing my passport? Suppose I need my passport to return to the foreign-country where I have a job that keeps my family clothed and fed? Do I have to gamble my family's well-being, in order to help a guy whose predicament is a result of his own irresponsible substance abuse?

I suppose a well-written Good Sam law might allow for nuances(eg. "Well, if you could easily find another job in your home country, you have to stop and help, but if you absolutely have to go overseas to work, you're excused"), but the debates would probably be endless on that.

Incidentally, the absence of Good Samaritan laws in Anglo-American legal codes is the basis for a well-known defense of abortion rights. Basically, argues that since we don't force anyone else to be a Good Samaritan, it's unjust to force the obligation upon a pregnant woman.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's reasonable to expect people to call for help. If they have to be required to do so by law, so be it.

There are a lot of social expectations in Germany which are backed up by law - e.g. quiet Sundays. I must say I like it, I'm just back from a visit To Heidelberg and I love the civilised nature of the place 😇

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12729 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd certainly support a law which essentially said "Don't be a dick to the emergency services", which is at the heart of the OP's link.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8909 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's reasonable to expect people to call for help. If they have to be required to do so by law, so be it.

There are a lot of social expectations in Germany which are backed up by law - e.g. quiet Sundays. I must say I like it, I'm just back from a visit To Heidelberg and I love the civilised nature of the place 😇

If they are required by law to help, then they will need to be indemnified from being sued on the basis that in "helping" they made things worse. IANAL but under English civil law I believe that can be the case.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24049 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If they are required by law to help, then they will need to be indemnified from being sued on the basis that in "helping" they made things worse. IANAL but under English civil law I believe that can be the case.

I think all US states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that protects people who render assistance in good faith.

I think such laws should exist regardless of whether people are forced to offer assistance.

Posts: 4893 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, our first aid instructor was very careful to advise us about that. Basically, if you are following recommended best practice as laid down in the current edition of the first aid manual you cannot be (successfully) sued for making things worse. Otherwise nobody would ever dare to do CPR, or move someone with a spinal injury into the recovery position.
Posts: 3953 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's reasonable to expect people to call for help. If they have to be required to do so by law, so be it.

There are a lot of social expectations in Germany which are backed up by law - e.g. quiet Sundays. I must say I like it, I'm just back from a visit To Heidelberg and I love the civilised nature of the place 😇

But if I'm understanding the phrase "quiet Sundays", the laws are obligating you NOT to do something(ie. make too much noise on Sundays), rather than obligating you to do something.

So, they're not quite equivalent to Good Samartian laws, which state that not only do I have to refrain from hurting people, I have to actively help people who have been hurt.

A closer comparison with Good Sam would be if the Quiet Sunday laws said that if a bedridden person is too weak to close his windows(in order to block out noise), his neighbours are legally required to go over to his house and do it for him.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555

 - Posted      Profile for wild haggis         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The whole point of the Good Samaritan is not just helping people (anyone can help friends and people like them) but actually go to the assistance of your enemy. Put the story into the correct context please.

Samaritans and Jews hated each others' guts. So the Good Samaritan did more than just help out someone in need.

He put prejudice and hatred aside and went to help out his enemy.

How can you make a law that would cover all aspects of that?

--------------------
wild haggis

Posts: 121 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
France famously has its non-assistance law. The full title is “non-assistance of a person in danger of death”. So I think the actions for which these people were prosecuted in Germany (not calling an ambulance for a person collapsed on the floor*) could probably get you in legal trouble here too, although I am very much not a criminal lawyer.

I don’t have a particular problem with this. The scope is written into the name of the French law – danger of death. It would be nice if human decency could be relied upon not to leave someone to die, but apparently it can’t. I incline to the view that it’s right for society to censure people who disregard someone else’s life in that way.

*although AIUI, that isn’t its most common field of application. Basically it is the existence of this law which ensures that anyone turning up at a hospital emergency unit with anything serious will always get treatment, whatever their state of medical coverage. The hospital could get sued into next year otherwise and they won’t take the risk. / tangent

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3622 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have deep misgivings against any attempt by government to force people to be actively good (as opposed to banning evil, such as killing or theft). For one thing, who defines "good"? There are plenty of people in the world who I'm sure neither of us would want to have the power to command us to behave in the way they deem good.

Isn't good a consensual definition? Though in the case of coming to someone's aid, it seems a behavioural definition: someone is obviously hurt and in need, someone else helps or doesn't. I don't know the threshold for help, but I'd assume it is calling the emergency number at minimum.

[ 19. September 2017, 15:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11160 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It reminds one to give sleeping addicts a look. My wife won't let me get close unless she thinks there's something worse wrong. These weren't monsters, four on the trot? They were you and me in a hurry and inured to comatose addicts.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16988 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
The whole point of the Good Samaritan is not just helping people (anyone can help friends and people like them) but actually go to the assistance of your enemy. Put the story into the correct context please.

Samaritans and Jews hated each others' guts. So the Good Samaritan did more than just help out someone in need.

He put prejudice and hatred aside and went to help out his enemy.

How can you make a law that would cover all aspects of that?

You're correct, of course, but I think the character from the parable is just used because he's a well-known figure from literature who stops to help a stranger.

Granted, the truncated symbolism has led many people to misunderstand the point of the story, ie. they think it's just that people should help others.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If they are required by law to help, then they will need to be indemnified from being sued on the basis that in "helping" they made things worse. IANAL but under English civil law I believe that can be the case.

I think all US states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that protects people who render assistance in good faith.

I think such laws should exist regardless of whether people are forced to offer assistance.

The law of England and Wales gives no such protection. Sioni Sais is expressing a valid anxiety.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7386 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well the Red Cross teacher told me years ago (when I was on a first aid course) that nobody has been punished for doing their best to follow the first aid instructions in a bad situation - however it is important to know the basics of what you are doing given the frequency of litigation.

But maybe this depends on how the legislation is worded and how the courts interpret the law.

The first motorists coming across an accident might not have the ability to help treat a victim, but everyone surely should have the understanding that they're supposed to help in some way - be it trying to slow down traffic, calling for emergency help etc.

If there is a man lying across the road, one might not have the skills to test his pulse, but presumably it'd be a good idea not to run him over.

[ 19. September 2017, 16:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10314 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
The whole point of the Good Samaritan is not just helping people (anyone can help friends and people like them) but actually go to the assistance of your enemy. Put the story into the correct context please.

Samaritans and Jews hated each others' guts. So the Good Samaritan did more than just help out someone in need.

He put prejudice and hatred aside and went to help out his enemy.

How can you make a law that would cover all aspects of that?

What a strange comment. If one is supposed to look beyond the status of someone and help them if they've been in an accident - how does that not apply to any other kind of victim?

Or are you trying to say that the Good Samaritan should only help someone they come across in the street who they happen to burn with hatred for - but anyone else they can walk merrily by, safe in the knowledge that they're not an enemy so the Lord hasn't given any instruction to help.

Also - IIRC - the parable of the Good Samaritan is in answer to the question "who is my neighbour", and the answer was "the one who helped".

[ 19. September 2017, 16:34: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10314 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cheesy wrote:

quote:
If there is a man lying across the road, one might not have the skills to test his pulse, but presumably it'd be a good idea not to run him over.
Running him over would qualify as assault, something that's already illegal without Good Samaritan laws.

[ 19. September 2017, 16:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Running him over would qualify as assault, something that's already illegal without Good Samaritan laws.

OK. Forget running him over - one could drive off and do nothing at all.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10314 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
The whole point of the Good Samaritan is not just helping people (anyone can help friends and people like them) but actually go to the assistance of your enemy. Put the story into the correct context please.

Samaritans and Jews hated each others' guts. So the Good Samaritan did more than just help out someone in need.

He put prejudice and hatred aside and went to help out his enemy.

How can you make a law that would cover all aspects of that?

What a strange comment. If one is supposed to look beyond the status of someone and help them if they've been in an accident - how does that not apply to any other kind of victim?

Or are you trying to say that the Good Samaritan should only help someone they come across in the street who they happen to burn with hatred for - but anyone else they can walk merrily by, safe in the knowledge that they're not an enemy so the Lord hasn't given any instruction to help.

Also - IIRC - the parable of the Good Samaritan is in answer to the question "who is my neighbour", and the answer was "the one who helped".

I assume Haggis just meant that "Good Samaritan Law" is a misnomer, because the point of the parable is not simply that we should help people, whereas that is the point of the laws.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
If there is a man lying across the road, one might not have the skills to test his pulse, but presumably it'd be a good idea not to run him over.
Running him over would qualify as assault, something that's already illegal without Good Samaritan laws.
It would also be a very good idea to phone an ambulance and wait for it to arrive, put out red triangles etc.

This was the problem in the article, the people stepped over him and only the fifth person called an ambulance. The first four who simply left him for dead were the ones, rightly imo, prosecuted.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12729 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Running him over would qualify as assault, something that's already illegal without Good Samaritan laws.

OK. Forget running him over - one could drive off and do nothing at all.
Yep.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6446 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IANAL, but I think that, in the UK, it's not illegal to do nothing. OTOH, I've heard that, if further harm is caused, say, by putting someone with a spinal injury into the recovery position, one may be subject to litigation i.e. being sued...

....I do hope I'm wrong.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 9419 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The law for my jurisdiction is here. One page, concise: you are protected unless grossly negligent. Some legal eagle will have to interpret gross negligence.

The UK has a more complicated act, which I found, but it is too legalistic for me to link to, called SARAH, but here's something which helps a bit: Social Action, Responsibility & Heroism Act 2015.

Posts: 11160 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If they are required by law to help, then they will need to be indemnified from being sued on the basis that in "helping" they made things worse. IANAL but under English civil law I believe that can be the case.

I think all US states have some kind of "Good Samaritan" law that protects people who render assistance in good faith.

I think such laws should exist regardless of whether people are forced to offer assistance.

The law of England and Wales gives no such protection. Sioni Sais is expressing a valid anxiety.
Well, yes and no. If a Christian Barnard or Victor Chang were operating in a well equipped theatre with suitable supporting staff, the law would require that they exercise the skill of a competent heart surgeon in such circumstances. OTOH, if either came across someone collapsed on a remote footpath, the law would require that they exercise the skill of a competent heart surgeon in such circumstances. The test is the same,the circumstances differ, and thus what they could reasonably be expected to do would be different.

Look at it from a different angle. What would be expected of me were I to be the one collapsed on the footpath? The answer would be to do that which a competent layperson would do, only a slight variation in expression but an enormous difference in terms of the action required. If I did start what I thought to be CPR by pressing with my hands, and broke a rib or 2, I would not be liable for that (I know that that is a recognised risk of anyone doing CPR but let that slide for a moment). On the other hand if got no results by pressing with my hands and decided to jump on the person and in fact caused very serious injury, I could well be liable in damages.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6770 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most US Good Samaritan laws protect someone who provides assistance unless their conduct rises to the level of gross negligence or some similar wording. You don't have to be as good as normally competent to be protected. Which I think is the right place to put the bar. You don't want people to worry about the legal consequences of offering help - you want them to get on with it.
Posts: 4893 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have deep misgivings against any attempt by government to force people to be actively good (as opposed to banning evil, such as killing or theft). For one thing, who defines "good"? There are plenty of people in the world who I'm sure neither of us would want to have the power to command us to behave in the way they deem good.

Isn't good a consensual definition?
Not once it's enshrined in law, it isn't. At that point it's merely whatever the political party that passes the law says it is.

Once you accept the principle that laws can be passed to force people to do "good", you open the door for all kinds of "good" to be legislated for. If such laws were passed in the UK or US right now, it would be the Tories or Republicans who would be defining "good", and using the force of law to make you comply. Maybe they would define "good" as buying lots of stuff from their corporate paymasters?

Personally, I prefer the freedom to decide what is good (and thus what to do in any given situation) for myself. Sure, that means a few uncaring assholes will walk right past me as I lie dying on the floor rather than helping me, but on balance that's a risk I'm willing to take.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29940 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Personally, I prefer the freedom to decide what is good (and thus what to do in any given situation) for myself. Sure, that means a few uncaring assholes will walk right past me as I lie dying on the floor rather than helping me, but on balance that's a risk I'm willing to take.

To be fair, I think this is a problem with the way the law is worded (or perhaps the way it is being reported) rather than the idea of a law.

The law says some things about road markings. At dangerous junctions, a thick solid white line often means that one has to stop.

Now, morally one might say that there is nobody watching at a specific junction, no policeman is likely to pull you over. But most people would understand that the markings are there for everyone's safety. And that if you decide to ignore the road markings and cause an accident, then the law book will justifiably be thrown at you, because you were a dick.

So I don't think there is a problem per say with the idea that the law can tell you how to make moral decisions in particular circumstances.

And a law that says what a motorist should do if faced with an accident - on the level of stopping to call for help - seems as reasonable as expecting a motorist to stop at a stop line.

The problem IMO is where the law doesn't specify what is a reasonable thing for a motorist to do if they come across an accident.

[ 20. September 2017, 15:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10314 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, surely there are plenty of laws that oblige you to do a specific good (as opposed to just avoiding doing a specific bad). Pay taxes, for example. Declare your sources of income. Educate your children.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7178 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
These weren't monsters, four on the trot? They were you and me in a hurry and inured to comatose addicts.

That's how I read it. Having lived in London at one stage of my life.

I can find no sympathy for the teenagers who mocked an obviously-drowning man instead of summoning help.

But it seems like the German passers-by may well not have realised the emergency nature of the situation. And so should be considered as innocent of criminal intent until proven guilty.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3060 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But it seems like the German passers-by may well not have realised the emergency nature of the situation. And so should be considered as innocent of criminal intent until proven guilty.

Their defense in court was that they thought the man was homeless and sleeping in the nice warm bank lobby. The court didn't agree.
Posts: 4893 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Samaritan didn't just help someone from a ethic group that hated him and destroyed his temple, he broke the formal rules of his religion to do so. Unlike the the priest and Levite, he put the needs of the naked (possibly dead) man before his own purity.

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tell me more about this temple. What temple did the Samaritans have?

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But it seems like the German passers-by may well not have realised the emergency nature of the situation. And so should be considered as innocent of criminal intent until proven guilty.

And then they were proven guilty. I don't understand how "we should be innocent until proven guilty" leads to "we therefore shouldn't be proven guilty." That's not rational.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096

 - Posted      Profile for simontoad   Email simontoad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My recollection from first aid training is that people with first aid skills are not required to render assistance in Victoria in circumstances where a duty of care does not exist, but once you start rendering assistance a duty of care to the person you are assisting arises. Gee D. explains what that's about above.

--------------------
Human

Posts: 1258 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014  |  IP: Logged
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555

 - Posted      Profile for wild haggis         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Demos for your comment.

I think much of this thread is talking at cross purposes. Are we discussing laws in countries where you have to give assistance (never knew such a thing existed) or what the parable of the Good Samaritan is about and should there be legislation to support it?

Many years ago, when we were developing the Hammersmith & Fulham (London) Agreed Syllabus for RE the question of the Good Samaritan came up.What was it really about? Most people on the panel assumed it was about helping your neighbour in need. Any neighbour. After discussion we felt that it gave a platform for discussion on racism as well (Samaratna/Jews - check the b/ground if you don't know)

So, being a good teacher, I asked my class. Before they read the story the discussion was about helping others in need. Interesting that the kids felt happy about helping friends or strangers. They saw no problem with that. But not someone from another gang......................

We then read the story (in a modern translation and after explaining something of the back ground). There was silence. One wee lad said, "But if Jesus said I had to help someone stabbed by "....." gang. I would get killed! Woe miss, that's tough. Jesus asks a lot of us"

I can't logically see how you can legislate to "help" someone in need, whether friend or neighbour (however you define neighbour) anyway.

How can you reinforce it? Someone with no training, "Trying to help" could do more harm than good.

How do you know who is a qualified First Aider? There is no national list that I know of, as different organisations may not keep records and there are different levels of training.

It's a minefield.

If we did legislate then why is there so much suffering? Legislation just doesn't work does it? So what's the point of legislating?

--------------------
wild haggis

Posts: 121 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Samaritan didn't just help someone from a ethic group that hated him and destroyed his temple, he broke the formal rules of his religion to do so. Unlike the the priest and Levite, he put the needs of the naked (possibly dead) man before his own purity.

I understood that the Jews were not supposed to interact with Samaritans, but I'd never heard that the Samaritans were actually religiously obliged to refrain from touching Jews. Do you have a source for that?

Anyway, I still don't understand the point that you and wild haggis are making.

The parable starts in answer to the question in Luke 10:29 "And who is my neighbour?" and ends with the statement "The one who showed mercy".

Whilst it is true that there is a whole lot of extra backstory here, I can't see how it is wrong to think that the purpose of the parable is to illustrate that loving a neighbour means helping someone in need.

And in fact, the person in the story who was the merciful hero was from a despised minority who can't usually be considered to do anything right.

That's the message: do the right thing.

[ 21. September 2017, 12:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10314 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Samaritan didn't just help someone from a ethic group that hated him and destroyed his temple, he broke the formal rules of his religion to do so. Unlike the the priest and Levite, he put the needs of the naked (possibly dead) man before his own purity.

Nothing to do with purity - they were going FROM Jerusalem so had already done temple duty.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23073 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The parable starts in answer to the question in Luke 10:29 "And who is my neighbour?" and ends with the statement "The one who showed mercy".

Whilst it is true that there is a whole lot of extra backstory here, I can't see how it is wrong to think that the purpose of the parable is to illustrate that loving a neighbour means helping someone in need.

And in fact, the person in the story who was the merciful hero was from a despised minority who can't usually be considered to do anything right.

That's the message: do the right thing.

I always understood this story to be about expanding one's definition of just who is your "neighbour".

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17087 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, indeed.
Posts: 9467 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Tell me more about this temple. What temple did the Samaritans have?

One on their sacred mountain of Mount Gerizim. According to Josephus it was destroyed by one of the Hasmoneans round about 130 BC.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Samaritan didn't just help someone from a ethic group that hated him and destroyed his temple, he broke the formal rules of his religion to do so. Unlike the the priest and Levite, he put the needs of the naked (possibly dead) man before his own purity.

Nothing to do with purity - they were going FROM Jerusalem so had already done temple duty.
Maybe. Commentators have differing views. There was still a maybe naked maybe dead body lying on the ground. Why risk touching it?

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So you're saying the victim in the Good Samaritan story was from the group that destroyed the temple? Is that indicated in the story, and if so how?

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63201 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you're saying the victim in the Good Samaritan story was from the group that destroyed the temple? Is that indicated in the story, and if so how?

I'm not sure where you're going with this? Does anyone doubt that the victim in the story is meant to be a Jew? And that relations between Jews and Samaritans were, um, less than ideal and involved a history of mutual antagonism? I just made the point that the history included the destruction of the Samaritan temple on their holy hill.

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A week ago, in Boise, ID, a man driving a Porsche lost control of the car and plowed into a group of bystanders, injuring 12. A man was there with his fourteen year old son. The man immediately left with his son because he did not want the son see the carnage. Later, he said the guilt for leaving was terrible. He can only wish he had stayed to aid the injured.

[ 22. September 2017, 05:12: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posts: 2060 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

Nothing to do with purity - they were going FROM Jerusalem so had already done temple duty. [/QUOTE]Maybe. Commentators have differing views. There was still a maybe naked maybe dead body lying on the ground. Why risk touching it? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Regardless of any commentary, the text says 'from'.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23073 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But it seems like the German passers-by may well not have realised the emergency nature of the situation. And so should be considered as innocent of criminal intent until proven guilty.

And then they were proven guilty. I don't understand how "we should be innocent until proven guilty" leads to "we therefore shouldn't be proven guilty." That's not rational.
The German law may be framed in such a way that no wrong intent is needed, that the fact of having not rendered assistance makes one guilty regardless of motivation & regardless of whether one has actually noticed that someone is having a medical emergency.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3060 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools