Are we morally obligated?

[Desparado]

BH's thread about wanting to confront the people who had beaten up a man elicited some very interesting responses. Are we morally obligated to help or jump in when you see a "wrong" being committed? Does it depend on the severity, ie., robbery, a woman or child being assaulted vs. petty theft, etc?

For some people it's a trigger response where they act instantly without thinking. Some people can literally "shut off" what they had seen and not get involved. It is easy to rationalize and analyze the situation after the crime was committed but how do we really act while it's actually happening?

[bodyhard]

BH's thread about wanting to confront the people who had beaten up a man elicited some very interesting responses. Are we morally obligated to help or jump in when you see a "wrong" being committed? Does it depend on the severity, ie., robbery, a woman or child being assaulted vs. petty theft, etc?

For some people it's a trigger response where they act instantly without thinking. Some people can literally "shut off" what they had seen and not get involved. It is easy to rationalize and analyze the situation after the crime was committed but how do we really act while it's actually happening?

I don't know if it is morally obligated, but I know I will always get in if I see someone getting hurt in anyway. Unless it is a one on one fight between two men.

[MsBodyhard]

My husband would get in each and every time with little to no regard for himself, I love him and hate him for it.

[cowboybiker]

Then don't get involved.

Just stand back and take vids that you can post on the internet, and then question what is wrong with people and society.

[Phattso]

I do not believe it is a moral obligation. For me, it is offensive and would be instinct to act to a degree. I would have to do something.

[Desparado]

My husband would get in each and every time with little to no regard for himself, I love him and hate him for it.

I'm sure he knows this.

Then don't get involved.

Just stand back and take vids that you can post on the internet, and then question what is wrong with people and society.

People who do this are reprehensible.

I do not believe it is a moral obligation. For me, it is offensive and would be instinct to act to a degree. I would have to do something.

Does being older and having a family change the way you think?

[Phattso]

Does being older and having a family change the way you think?

I am single and no children. I have a C&C (45 cal), but would never use it unless I was being sincerely threatened or if someone else is being sincerely threatened and could not defend her or himself.

[Desparado]

I asked if being married and having kids affect the way you would handle a situation happening. At a young age (17 years old) I witnessed a guy grabbed an old woman's purse and ran off. I ran after the guy and he eventually dropped the purse. I didn't think of the possible consequence until I was much older. When you are young you feel indestructible. Would I do the same thing now? The answer scares the hell out of me.

[frozensparky]

It's honestly a question that nobody can answer 100% unless they've been in a specific situation.

[j1nevertogthr]

Not morally obligated, its a physical reaction for me
Example: fatal car crash in front of two years ago, was 16, immediately jumped out of car and helped pull a man from his vehicle
Example b: about a month ago at work a man slipped in the acid pit fell on his back and his clothes were melting just as soon as he could take off, I didn't even budge
Fight or flight kicks in most situations but its only when there's a lot of other people in the vicinity do you tend to assume someone else will take care of ****, that's when you tell the pos in you to fuk off and you do something

Cliffs
If you're alone you tend to funk chit up or run, in crowds you're calm for some reason and have to choose to help
So yea help

[InternetTuffGuy]

I don't know about moral obligations but when I see somebody in distress I know it doesn't feel right to stand by and do nothing if you posses the power to do something.

[SteveWright1]

I think many of us would want to step in or at least when we play those type scenarios in our mind we see ourselves stepping in

but I also think many of us do consider the possibility that if the situation was real, the self preservation instinct would conquer the hero desire

pulling someone from a car accident = yes I hope I would do that
stepping up to 2 dudes in a car park = I doubt very much I would do that, even though naturally I would like to say "Sure I would do that"

[Karl_Hungus]

Fight or flight kicks in most situations but its only when there's a lot of other people in the vicinity do you tend to assume someone else will take care of ****, that's when you tell the pos in you to fuk off and you do something

Yup, it is called diffusion of responsibility and it is a well-known phenomenon. It seems counterintuitive, but you are much less likely to be helped if lots of other people are standing around than if just one or two other people are in the vicinity. Fact is, MOST people say they would jump in, but in actuality, MOST would not.


A perfect example -- Look at all the grown men standing around there doing nothing.

[sumolgi]

BH's thread about wanting to confront the people who had beaten up a man elicited some very interesting responses. Are we morally obligated to help or jump in when you see a "wrong" being committed? Does it depend on the severity, ie., robbery, a woman or child being assaulted vs. petty theft, etc?

For some people it's a trigger response where they act instantly without thinking. Some people can literally "shut off" what they had seen and not get involved. It is easy to rationalize and analyze the situation after the crime was committed but how do we really act while it's actually happening?

Here (Washington) there's a legal obligation to at least notify authorities if another person is in peril. So legislated moral obligation...

[Desparado]

It's honestly a question that nobody can answer 100% unless they've been in a specific situation.

I remember a story in Chicago a few years ago about a man who was beaten within an inch of his life for being a Good Samaritan. He heard a woman screaming for help, saw her bloody, and was being choked. This was clearly a situation where calling police might have been too late. He hurled his body, all 118 lbs. of it, to stop the attack. Unfortunately the attacker turned his wrath on him and beat him so badly that doctors had to remove a third of his skull to relieve brain swelling.

Surely he knew he was not going to win this confrontation and yet he did it anyway. A remarkable and selfless act.

[Clinos]

I don't think someone can be morally obligated to render assistance or aid, either the person is going to help or they are not. I am nitpicking though. My solid answer is: Yes.

[Iceman1800]

Absolutely obligated if you want a civilized society. Maybe not get involved physically or put yourself in harms way. But be a witness, call the authorities, or render aid after the fact. If 10 guys are beating on one guy, you jumping in to save that person just means 10 guys beating on two.

[steffo99]

I think the only moral obligation is to try and do at least something to help, even if that is only to call for help.

Hard to know for sure , as mentioned, how one would act but if a situation is ongoing I would try to quickly assess the risk of bodily harm to myself -
their number, size/look of the dudes - before I did anything. But if a kid or an elderly person or someone generally defenseless is being hurt then I would just jump in.
I might let a grown man get beat up a bit before risking my own health. Guess that's messed up in a way, but probably not unique.

I've helped some girls fight off a skinny junkie, but if it was two dudes I would probably try a more verbal/taunting approach (just to get them off the victim) and be ready to leg it if need be.

[LiftingDoctor]

The principle of reciprocity. I would want another person to jump in and help me if I'm in danger, so I would probably do the same for another. Are you morally obligated? By all means, I think yes, unless you would be in severe danger yourself if you were to step in.

[Brackneyc]

It's honestly a question that nobody can answer 100% unless they've been in a specific situation.

And most studies of these scenarios would suggest that most do not get involved. While the studies may be only one measure, we also see a lot of anecdotal evidence which would suggest the same.

[NorwichGrad]

Are we morally obligated?

ABSOLUTELY!

Unfortunately, reality is very few people in this world will do the right thing. The majority of people are sheep. Does this make them bad people? No, of course not. Sheep are gentle creatures who have no capacity for violence. They just don’t have the courage to do what’s right. That’s all.

Very few people will do the right thing because it is inherent within us to become followers. We need more leaders in our society. Leaders are not born. The individual must make a conscious effort to become a leader. And a mandatory part of being a good leader is character. Character is in motion (like what bodyhard did). Integrity is not doing what is wrong. Character is doing what is right. If you see an injustice, you do what is right. You are morally obligated to do so.

Here is what I mean by being a follower / beta muddafukker:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

[bodyhard]

Check this out, I know it is old but it fits this topic.

Most here hate my violence and some (except for the folks who have met me IRL) think I am some keyboard warrior, but I would be the first one to do what these two young guys did, just quicker.

[NorwichGrad]

Check this out, I know it is old but it fits this topic.

Most here hate my violence and some (except for the folks who have met me IRL) think I am some keyboard warrior, but I would be the first one to do what these two young guys did, just quicker.

Someday, somewhere in America, shows like ‘What Would You Do’ is gonna attract the right person. That person is gonna have a CCW. And he is gonna triple tap the people playing the ‘bad’ guys, without him even being aware he’s on candid camera.

[bodyhard]

Someday, somewhere in America, shows like ‘What Would You Do’ is gonna attract the right person. That person is gonna have a CCW. And he is gonna triple tap the people playing the ‘bad’ guys, without him even being aware he’s on candid camera.

Whats a CCW?

[Iceman1800]

Whats a CCW?

legally owned concealed gun.

[cowboybiker]

legally owned concealed gun.

Define legally.

[bodyhard]

legally owned concealed gun.

Thanks!

[thomashenry]

bh's thread about wanting to confront the people who had beaten up a man elicited some very interesting responses. Are we morally obligated to help or jump in when you see a "wrong" being committed? Does it depend on the severity, ie., robbery, a woman or child being assaulted vs. Petty theft, etc?

For some people it's a trigger response where they act instantly without thinking. Some people can literally "shut off" what they had seen and not get involved. It is easy to rationalize and analyze the situation after the crime was committed but how do we really act while it's actually happening?

yes

[Guinea-pig]

legally owned concealed gun.

Very common here in the Lone Star State.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Very common here in the Lone Star State.

Here you can open carry without any permit. Gun has to be visible from 3 angles.

In John's case (in hindsight) he should have called 911 when he saw the guys ragging on the one guy.

I likely would have just walked over and tried to calm down the situation. But I would have sent my wife into the store and told her to call the cops first.