Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No I wouldn't.Reason being that I don't see why I should spend the rest of my life unhappy with myself just so a guy can walk away from something and still have as much chance of getting hit by a bus.
People die every day so saving ONE life for a moment at the expense of the quality of my life going down the pan isn't worth it.
-AC
What if the life you're saving is your own?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I disagree, I think my point is perfectly sensible, and that yours is morally wrong. Though if you ARE giving away all you own to people who need it more, or to save lives, then you may have a better point. But you buy into western hypocricy as much as anyone else, and so you have no right to lecture anyone else about it."No social obligation? This has NOTHING to do with social obligation, for one, its moral obligation. Thats not a must."
If they don't have a social obligation, you have no moral grounds to criticise them for it. You cerrtainly aren't displaying any superior morality yourself whilst you continue to benefit from capitalist society.
Yeah, your point is great ush thumbsup we all agree with you.
Of course if fire fighter or a plice officer or a paramedic decided that if going into a fire/or a fight/or down some dirty allyway is someting he would risk his health/life, then its perfectly understandable for him to let the other person die.
I see what you're saying!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course if fire fighter or a plice officer or a paramedic decided that if going into a fire/or a fight/or down some dirty allyway is someting he would risk his health/life, then its perfectly understandable for him to let the other person die.I see what you're saying!
i'm not a fire fighter or a police officer or a paramedic. unlike the people in those professions, it's not my job to save the lives of complete strangers.
Exactly.
Just because you (Lil) find it plausible to risk your life doing something that isn't your responsibility, doesn't mean that those who don't are wrong or vain.
I'm not going to demean myself (in this case) or risk having a poor quality of life in which I'm unhappy with my situation, for someone I have never ever met and will never see again, nor have any impact on my life. Family members I care about and friends I care about, fair enough. Not randoms.
Firefighters and cops share the same moral obligation as you to the degree that they take it up as their profession. I don't.
"What if the life you're saving is your own?"
This isn't about saving my life, it's about saving someone elses. If I don't want to die, then of course I'm going to save my own life. I'm not a random person to myself am I? Bit of a weird question.
-AC
Of course if fire fighter or a plice officer or a paramedic decided that if going into a fire/or a fight/or down some dirty allyway is someting he would risk his health/life, then its perfectly understandable for him to let the other person die.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Of course, the fire fighter takes on this obligation when he takes the job.
True but what if everyone was of the same mind and no one was willing to take on those professional obligations...
If you want to take it further what if soldiers felt the same way 'hell I'm not willing to risk my neck fighting for my country and what i believe in!' hey may be you've just come up with new idea for world peace... 😕
"True but what if everyone was of the same mind and no one was willing to take on those professional obligations..."
That's not the case though.
There are PROFESSIONS for moral obligation because it's a known fact that random citizens by default aren't responsible for their fellow man/woman.
I don't consider it my responsibility to tend to others who mean nothing to me and I won't have people telling me I'm vain or something as a result. If you (not you Baylin, people in general) decide that you would spend the rest of your life as obese for some random generic nobody that you'll never ever see again and have never seen before, go for it. I appreciate your quaint "a life is a life" mentality but I on the other hand, prefer to keep my life down to those I care for.
-AC
"That's not the case though.
There are PROFESSIONS for moral obligation because it's a known fact that random citizens by default aren't responsible for their fellow man/woman."
Exactly. The point about firemen is totally irrelevant; they take on responsibility as part of their life. If you actually take and accept that responsiblity, by the bodies empowered to give it, and THEN don't act on it, that's totally different. THose people, very obviously, DO have a social respnsiblity.
This isn't about "what if no-one took that responsibility." The answer to that is obvious- if no-one ever took jobs related to the maintenance of society, then we would not have society.
But so what? That's nothing to do with the original question. The point is that you have no right to morally oblige citizens to start making personal sacrifices for others. Not one ounce.
And again, as I say, whilst you still spend money on luxuries here that could be spent spending lives elsewhere, then fronting this point is simple hypocrisy. You are spending money on clothes that make you look good whilst others die for want of that money; that strikes me as a real-life situation that is far more vain than the made-up nonsense that this question is. If you really do think that people have this moral obligation to sacrifice for others- well, as I already said, prove it. Give up your monies, your 'handbags and your gladrags', and all the trappings of the modern western world, and use the proceeds to save lives. You can live without them, but they can't live without the money, so why do you insist on keeping it all?
Not going to happen, is it?
Like I say- welcome to the real world- you are as much a part of it as any of us. People have a right to what they have and what they are, and trying to make them feel they should give that up for others is wrong. Whilst you stand in that system, it is actually quite monstrous to criticise others for that.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I was hauling a 20 lb. container of cat little around yesterday and I cannot imagine myself carrying FOUR of those. The physical effects would be horrible, aside from the drastic shortening of my life.
Still..to save your own life? I would carry a twenty ton pile of shit to save my own life...
But! regardless of the truth of the situation...He's right. It depends on whose life I save. If it's someone I care for...then I would do it in a heartbeat. Otherwise I wouldn't care a rats ass......