is there a moral obligation?

[dsayers]

I was having a conversation with a friend tonight when it got quite ugly out of nowhere. So I wanted to seek outside input to possibly help sort through it.

 

Scenario: You are walking out of a restaurant when somebody in front of you falls and breaks their leg. Are you morally obligated to help them?

 

Please note that the question is not would you help them or should you help them. Simply put, do you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help them?

 

Thank you for you help with this.

[Tyler Durden]

Obviously it would be the right thing to do, but talking strictly in terms of moral obligation:

 

No. You did not cause the problem, you were not involved in any way shape or form, so you have no obligation to do anything.

[cab21]

no, on the assumption that you did not cause the fall.

[Mike Fleming]

No.  There are no unchosen positive obligations.  But it's certainly the decent, civilised thing to do.

[AlesD]

I also agree with the previous two posters. It is a nice thing to do but it is not a moral obligation if you were not causing it.

[Yeravos]

No moral obligation.

[Emman]

No moral obligation. People get trolled by things like this the whole time. Beggars, grandmas and politicians are very good at these sort of "accidents"

[entropyanndroid]

You are not morally obligated to help an injured person, to injure a person, or to abstain from injuring a person. What you do is based off your own personal choice, informed by strategies both conscious and unconscious. The choice to help the injured person indicates a tendency towards cooperative efforts, and the intent to reaffirm a desire for such an arrangement with those with whom you socialize.

[Songbirdo]

If they are bleeding out or internally and could possibly die if you do not help...is allowing them to die through inaction moral? Similar to the argument for Doctors refusing to treat a dying patient that they have the remedy.

 

To a lesser extent, by not helping, would letting them suffer longer than they have to be considered moral? If it takes them an extra five minutes, or an hour, to be administered a pain killer at a hospital, for instance.

 

You didn't cause the suffering per se, but you also aren't mitigating it by ignoring them.

[cab21]

You are not morally obligated to help an injured person, to injure a person, or to abstain from injuring a person. What you do is based off your own personal choice, informed by strategies both conscious and unconscious. The choice to help the injured person indicates a tendency towards cooperative efforts, and the intent to reaffirm a desire for such an arrangement with those with whom you socialize.

 

 this seems to be a completely amoral/ system not thinking about morals at all?

all up to personal choice indicates no morals at all.

saying someone can just choose to injure another from personal choice, to indicate a tendency for non cooperative efforts, there is no moral philosophy at all here, other from perhaps moral nihilism

 someone could become a hitman murderer and show the tendency for selective cooperative efforts.

[alexqr1]

I don't see how a positive obligation to help could be a logical conclusion.

[Pepin]

The question can be difficult to think about due to the framing, where the question of morality becomes confused with the topic of virtue. What is not trying to be ascertained is if you ought to help them, rather if there are ethical implications of not helping them, that is whether the person with the broken leg can use force against you if you choose not to help. The question becomes much more clear if rephrased in the form of:

 

"If you are walking out of a restaurant, and somebody in front of you falls and breaks their leg and you refuse to help, are they ethically justified in using force against you?".

 

Like with a lot of circumstances where force is justified, it is difficult to know what sort of force would be appropriate. If we assume that they can use force, can they point a gun at you to force you to help them out? Or is it only acceptable for them to sue you? How would the damages be calculated? These are technical problems, though important to think if this were to be put into practice.

 

Another question to ask is if you initiated force against person? If not, then if the person responds with force, then they are the initiator.

 

At least in the general case, it isn't at all clear that you are initiating force, rather you are using your ability to not associate.

 

It doesn't seem to me that this would indicate that the person would be right in using force against you, nor do the implications of the person using force against feel right. Of course whether somethings "feels right" isn't an argument, but the uneasiness in accepting the implications likely is a valid shorthand calculation.

 

With that out of the way, I do wish to make the case that though the person cannot initiate force against you, they can use voluntary means against you. He can broadcast "hey, that's the dick that wouldn't help me when I broke my leg", and in a rational society this would have a lot of social implications.

 

To take the more extreme example of letting a man drown that could have easily been saved, though it would be immoral for people to use force against you, it is perfectly fine for people to use the same freedom of association with you used that resulted in the man's death. Businesses won't serve you, nobody will allow you to use their roads, your electricity and other services are likely to be cut, and all without the use of force. If you are literally dying of hunger, nobody is obligated to give you food, just as you were not obligated to save the drowning man.

 

The above example likely goes a little to far, but it is important to understand that there are peaceful ways of dealing with douches.

[Mike Fleming]

If they are bleeding out or internally and could possibly die if you do not help...is allowing them to die through inaction moral? Similar to the argument for Doctors refusing to treat a dying patient that they have the remedy.

 

To a lesser extent, by not helping, would letting them suffer longer than they have to be considered moral? If it takes them an extra five minutes, or an hour, to be administered a pain killer at a hospital, for instance.

 

You didn't cause the suffering per se, but you also aren't mitigating it by ignoring them.

 

You still don't have an actual obligation to do anything.  The fact is, the vast majority of people would help in such a situation.  I've seen it over and over again in these types of situations.  There is no need to force obligations on to people in this regard.  Especially since there is no actual obligation.

 

The person who does nothing will either feel pangs of guilt at some point afterward if they have a conscience, or won't feel anything if they don't have a conscience.

 

As long as you don't cause the harm yourself, you have no obligation to mitigate someone else's pain.  That doesn't mean you should do nothing.  I don't need to feel obligated to help someone in order to help someone.  I do it because it is the decent thing to do and most people in my experience seem to do the same.

[alexqr1]

The question can be difficult to think about due to the framing, where the question of morality becomes confused with the topic of virtue. What is not trying to be ascertained is if you ought to help them, rather if there are ethical implications of not helping them, that is whether the person with the broken leg can use force against you if you choose not to help. The question becomes much more clear if rephrased in the form of: "If you are walking out of a restaurant, and somebody in front of you falls and breaks their leg and you refuse to help, are they ethically justified in using force against you?". Like with a lot of circumstances where force is justified, it is difficult to know what sort of force would be appropriate. If we assume that they can use force, can they point a gun at you to force you to help them out? Or is it only acceptable for them to sue you? How would the damages be calculated? These are technical problems, though important to think if this were to be put into practice. Another question to ask is if you initiated force against person? If not, then if the person responds with force, then they are the initiator. At least in the general case, it isn't at all clear that you are initiating force, rather you are using your ability to not associate. It doesn't seem to me that this would indicate that the person would be right in using force against you, nor do the implications of the person using force against feel right. Of course whether somethings "feels right" isn't an argument, but the uneasiness in accepting the implications likely is a valid shorthand calculation. With that out of the way, I do wish to make the case that though the person cannot initiate force against you, they can use voluntary means against you. He can broadcast "hey, that's the dick that wouldn't help me when I broke my leg", and in a rational society this would have a lot of social implications. To take the more extreme example of letting a man drown that could have easily been saved, though it would be immoral for people to use force against you, it is perfectly fine for people to use the same freedom of association with you used that resulted in the man's death. Businesses won't serve you, nobody will allow you to use their roads, your electricity and other services are likely to be cut, and all without the use of force. If you are literally dying of hunger, nobody is obligated to give you food, just as you were not obligated to save the drowning man. The above example likely goes a little to far, but it is important to understand that there are peaceful ways of dealing with douches.

Very eloquently put. Try bringing down these arguments.

[cynicist]

Why did it get ugly?

[dsayers]

Thank you for asking. I didn't want to get involved in the conversation at first so as not to cloud it with my bias (any more than I already had). Many thanks to everybody's feedback.

 

Some background: The friend in question is also a mentor of sorts as well as my boss (his security company) for 8 yrs now. He is former military, claims to be non-religious, but does believe in the necessity and legitimacy of government, armed forces, etc. That said, he is a very kind and gentle older man, though most of the conclusions he comes to are based on what feels right.

 

 

The short answer to your question was that when he provided that scenario, I answered him that no, one does not have a moral obligation to help the injured. He either heard "you shouldn't help them" or "I wouldn't help them." To which he responded, "Well then, find your island, dude." Upon exploration, I learned that he was telling me that I should secede from society because he believes that as a "tribe" we are required to look out for one another.

 

I tried my darnedest to make it clear that I was not saying that one shouldn't or that I wouldn't, but that there exists no moral obligation. By time all was said and done, I couldn't really tell if he accepted the clarification or the ramifications underneath it. It just really bothered me. Because even if I had said what he interpreted me as saying, I don't find prescribing going and living in isolation (after a life of grades of isolation due to abuse) rather than making the case for compassion as being very friendly at all.

 

 

The long answer has to do with the conversation that led to the above. A few months ago, he and I were hanging out at a restaurant (we're regulars there). I believe it was a Saturday night, almost as late as when bars let out. We heard some yelling up front, but couldn't tell if it was obnoxious horseplay or actual aggression. One of the waitresses came back to us (they know we're armed guards), terrified. We went up front to see what was going on, but the involved parties were already outside.

 

In the foyer (inside) was a woman. Just outside the doors, facing the parking lot was a smaller guy. Several feet in front of him was a guy who was pretending to try and kick his ass, with his own friend "holding him off." After a couple moments of no change, my friend opens the door, puts his hand on the guy's shoulder and steadily pulls him indoors. I won't go into details beyond that because they're not germane to the story.

 

Once back at our table, I voiced that I disagreed with his course of action. Not in a "we need to talk about this" sort of way. He explained himself anyways, certain that all was well because all turned out well. The next day, we were back at the same restaurant, with a mutual friend there as well. One of the waitresses was hanging out with us and they were talking about it (I was looking something up on the laptop). He misrepresented to the others my objection. So I had clarified that because the man in question was not initiating the use of force against anybody (and clearly choosing to remain in a situation that I would agree is unwise), to put his hands on him and pull him inside was immoral.

 

I can't stress enough how big of a deal I had NOT made of that night. He hadn't hurt anybody and meant well, so I didn't hold it against him at all. The only reason I had thoughts on it at all is in my line of work, that sort of moral clarity can go a long way I think. Anyways, he's brought it up a couple times since then, including a couple nights ago when he brought up the person breaking their leg in front of you scenario.

 

After spending 15 minutes talking with him about that, and how his remark made me feel, I came to the conclusion that the communication disconnect was rooted in the word obligation. From his perspective, he said he felt it was his moral obligation. I tried to explain that he was describing compassion and that what he was doing was choosing to help, not fulfilling an obligation. I tried to clarify obligation, that involuntary positive obligations aren't ethical, and that for my claim to be false, it would mean that somebody had a greater claim to his time and effort than he did.

 

I will be following up with him about this. Primarily because what he had said to me was quite disconcerting and if it's indicative of a deeper contempt, I need to know about it. I did tell him that night that it was uncomfortable to me to think that a friend of mine would be less comfortable with my having an improved moral clarity. I will post updates as I have them if anybody is interested.

[cab21]

help in which way?

  call for help?

nurse him back to health?

pay all his medical bills?

help incompetently and break his other leg in the process?

 

at what expense?

missing ones wife go through labor?

  losing a deal that keeps you  and your family in your house?

  instead of making a emergency decision about one workers?

missing that appointment with a hooker?

 

since the guy is working in security, maybe a security questions could be asked( not sure about his family situation, and i would not exactly ask a question in such a way)

 

if a man falls and breaks his leg, and you get a call that your house has been broken into, and in the fight your wife has killed the intruders, then fell and broke her hip, are you morally obligated to help the man with the broken leg? are you morally obligated to look after your house and family? if you choose one over the other, have you broken your moral obligation?

[cynicist]

I answered him that no, one does not have a moral obligation to help the injured. He either heard "you shouldn't help them" or "I wouldn't help them."

 

Right, you were saying there's nothing morally wrong about it and he interprets that as if you are fine with letting someone drown. I've experienced something similar when talking about morality and animal abuse... but that was with random online people. If someone I considered a friend said something that sounded that cold I'd want to be clear about it lol. Like wait, did you just say you would let someone drown?

 

I will be following up with him about this. Primarily because what he had said to me was quite disconcerting and if it's indicative of a deeper contempt, I need to know about it. I did tell him that night that it was uncomfortable to me to think that a friend of mine would be less comfortable with my having an improved moral clarity. I will post updates as I have them if anybody is interested.

 

I'd be interested, because I don't see how you could reach an understanding unless his understanding of morality improves. He likely feels contempt over you describing his actions as immoral, since as you said he thought he was morally obligated to perform them.