Most humans would agree that humans have moral status, but does that mean that we have to help any injured humans that cross our path? If people are responsible for helping others who are injured, it could create a separation between ethics and self interest. Certain states Good Samaritan laws protect trained and untrained people that attempt to help people in trouble, but some states do not and any mistakes could land someone in legal trouble. Say someone encountered a person in trouble, called the police and then were at the scene with an injured person waiting for the police to arrive. Should they help the person while help is on their way or is it ethically alright for them not to do anything and avoid legal trouble even if they feel they could help? These laws can also require people to help if they witness an accident. Should people be required to help each other because we all have moral status? Most of us would agree that we should help others in need, but it seems questionable to legally require someone to do so. We do create laws that are based on ethical codes such as not stealing from neighbors, but this only requires people to refrain from an action. Legally binding people to help each other is requiring them to act a certain way and not just to refrain from acting a certain way. It also seems to be connecting moral responsibility and legal responsibility to closely. People should help others because they choose to and not because they have to. Also, helping an injured stranger could be potentially dangerous and it seems unethical to require people to enter potentially dangerous situations. Injured people could be dangerous themselves, they could have been attacked and the attacker still a threat or they could have a communicable disease.
Should people legally be required to help one another?
Some information on Good Samaritan Laws: http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/f/07_good_sam_law.htm
I really like the issue you raised. it is a very interesting topic because the truth is, when it comes to helping other people that you dont know you may be making a bad decision. the person you touch may be iinfected or they may be hateful and blame you for touching them the wrong way relsuting in law suits. to me, as with a large amount of moral issues raised in our class it is imperitave that a person must simply make decisions. i do not beleive in sitting in a library reading books on moral obligations when the bottom line is that if a human truly needs your help and you can save them, you should.
ReplyDeletenow, to return to my comment about humans making decisions i do understand that this is highly subjective and puts human nature into the eye of the beholder but with this statement i must add the neccesity for a person to be knowledgeable and willing to learn in order to be a capable decision making human. mass murderers should not be given the opportunity to decide whether to help a suffereing person because they are not capable decision makers.
in many circumstances, helping the person may pose a risk for you (the decision maker) in this case it should merely factor into your decision. overall i belevie helping a person is similar to fight or flight in the sense that it is a quick decision in which a person can be too generous but can also be too selfish and to me, the only way to find a balance in this, is to gain a better understanding of the world around you... and this is only done with a life that cares (by a life that cares i mean someone that wants to do good, and does not want to do bad). mamy mistakes are made when making decisions but if you as a person truly want to help the world i trust that you will make the right decision.
do you agree with my theory of competent decision making as a guide moraltiy?
if someone has a broken leg it seems obvious to call 911 but if you dont are you morally in the worng?
I think that if you do not call the police because you are shocked by the stress of the situation, that would not make you immoral, but if you still do not call after recovering from the stress and you do not know that someone else has called that is negligent and immoral.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that competent decision making is an important ability to have to be considered a moral agent verse a moral patient, who deserves ethical consideration but cannot make ethical decisions on their own. A mass murderer is likely incapable of fully understanding moral reasoning and if they are unable to understand, than they cannot make moral decisions. This does not mean that the morals themselves change, but that certain people cannot be expected to act on them. People with mental illnesses and children would be examples. You seem to suggest that an ignorant person may also not be able to act as a full moral agent and I think that is a very interesting question. It raises a nature verse nurture problem. Are we born with certain knowledge about ethics or do we have to learn ethics?
I hope my answer addresses some aspects of your questions and I appreciate your response.