Originally posted by Bardock42I would side with the rescuer, because he was going out of his way to help the victim. The rescuer did not intentionally hurt the victim, they thought the victims life was in danger and, in the rescuers mind, they laid their life on the line to save them.
Is there any evidence either way, which would make you side with either claim?
Originally posted by Rogue JediNo, I mean, is there any evidence that suggest that he did, or did not injure her in the process. Because, it's pretty evident that your intentions do not make the harm you cause alright.
I would side with the rescuer, because he was going out of his way to help the victim. The rescuer did not intentionally hurt the victim, they thought the victims life was in danger and, in the rescuers mind, they laid their life on the line to save them.
As you said, in the rescuers mind the person's life was in danger, that might have been off, the damage they cause is more apparent though, and his intentions don't make the person's life now any easier, do they?
Originally posted by Bardock42From what I gather, the human spine is to complex too tell IF the victim would/would not have neen paralyzed by his actions, or lack of.
No, I mean, is there any evidence that suggest that he did, or did not injure her in the process. Because, it's pretty evident that your intentions do not make the harm you cause alright.As you said, in the rescuers mind the person's life was in danger, that might have been off, the damage they cause is more apparent though, and his intentions don't make the person's life now any easier, do they?
Originally posted by Bardock42I am no medical expert, but man, with all those nerves running inside the spine, how can they determine what really happened? And if the injury occured in the actual crash, NOT during the rescue, how the hell can they tell? Are there ways of determining that?
Well, that's what the trial would be for to determine, I figure.
Re: Good Samaratin being sued....
Good Samaritan Law be damned, I guess.
It's a hard call here, does the 'victim' have proof that she would have been better off sans being pulled-out by the man/did he actually cause extra injury? She very well could have been ****ed from the crash. Edit: Guess this is the court case in question.
What if the 'puller' had decided to not touch her and just wait for trained personnel to come, as is the common practice, but the car did catch fire and she burned to death, would he be held liable for not helping someone in need?
Originally posted by Bardock42Let's say, for arguments sake, that by pulling her from the car, he inadvertantly caused an internal injury that killed her. Well, then it would be the same as, say, being hit by another car and the other driver dying in the resulting crash. Dude didn't set out to kill her or injure her, so no, he shouldn't be held accountable, idiot or not.
So you think if you kill someone that you thought needed help cause you are an idiot, you should not be held accountable?
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, you do agree with what I said, but chose to disagree on the account of...just cause?
No, I disagree because morality isn't black and white. He was trying to save her life, considering she's better off than a dead person he shouldn't get in trouble. There are plenty of cases where intention completely excuses actions, if someone rudely pushes someone else out of the way to prevent that person from being stabbed the rudeness is totally excuses. If someone, completely be accident, hurts someone while trying to save their life it isn't at all comparable to them causing the harm in a different context.
Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBut that is not a misbehaviour. If he actuallz saves someone, yes, if he just thinks he does, but does a lot of harm, no, then he is accountable. Not equal to what would be had he intentionally hurt the person, because that is an entirely different situation, but still accountable. Which is the point of determining whether he made things worse.
No, I disagree because morality isn't black and white. He was trying to save her life, considering she's better off than a dead person he shouldn't get in trouble. There are plenty of cases where intention completely excuses actions, if someone rudely pushes someone else out of the way to prevent that person from being stabbed the rudeness is totally excuses. If someone, completely be accident, hurts someone while trying to save their life it isn't at all comparable to them causing the harm in a different context.Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life.
You totally disregard whether they actually helped, which is important, the intention, less so.
[edit] And I think you see objectionists wrongly, you are probably thinking about utilitarians.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's what the trial would be for to determine, I figure.
Indeed, but even with the barest medical training I have (I used to lifeguard) we know not to mess with people who have been in potential spinal accidents, unless the person is like face down in the water or what have you, and then, there are specific CPR and movement tricks for spinal victims as well.
I don't know if it is fair to say that any reasonable person should know this, but it is true that unless there was a really good reason to think the car was about to burst into flame, the person was acting highly irrationally.
Whether or not the damage was caused by the accident or the removal, imho, is secondary, considering the nature of spinal injuries and especially considering this person was not (and knew they were not) trained in proper removal of injured people from vehicles. I think it hinges more on whether or not it is reasonable to assume that a person should know not to move an injured body unless there is immediate danger, and what constitutes immediate danger.
However, I agree with you in general that we don't know enough and I'd love the court transcripts (as if I'd read them)
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Let's say, for arguments sake, that by pulling her from the car, he inadvertantly caused an internal injury that killed her. Well, then it would be the same as, say, being hit by another car and the other driver dying in the resulting crash. Dude didn't set out to kill her or injure her, so no, he shouldn't be held accountable, idiot or not.
however, how reasonable is it to expect people to know that they shouldn't move someone who has a spinal injury?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Haven't you claimed not to be an Objectivist before? Because I can't think of anyone else who would argue against the person trying to save a woman's life.
to be honest, we don't know (and it really doesn't appear so anyways) that this woman's life was in danger, only that the person making the rescue thought it was.
That judgement is key imho
EDIT: I own the triple post