Do I owe you my services if you're drowning?

[DCLugi]

This has always been fuzzy for me. If a professional swimmer doesn't save a drowning child are there any moral issues or is he just a prick? I don't think doctors or farmers or prostitutes have any obligation to offer me their services. What sayest thou o thoughtful entities of the future?

[WasatchMan]

It is pretty evil not to save someone from drowning if you can.  This is because of the law of non-contradiction, which has long been (since Aristotle) one of the major axioms behind ethical systems. 

 

Someone cannot expect to be saved by others, but not be expected to save others.  Therefore, someone who would not help someone is holding a contradiction in their behavior because everyone would hope to be saved by others if dieing.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

No he doesn't owe the child his services. This is a question liberals ask in order to drown principals in a sea of emotion. I don't think this child drowning scenario being so common is coincidental. 

[Alan C.]

He doesn't owe his services, but he would likely receive condemnation, scorn, and possibly ostracism for doing nothing.

 

Obviously it depends upon circumstances. If the child fell through ice or was being washed away in rapids then the risk might be too great to jump in after him.

[J-William]

This has always been fuzzy for me. If a professional swimmer doesn't save a drowning child are there any moral issues or is he just a prick? I don't think doctors or farmers or prostitutes have any obligation to offer me their services. What sayest thou o thoughtful entities of the future?

Doctors don't owe anyone services, but if they're near someone who needs emergency help and they don't... Then they look like dicks. There's no obligation, but they might be ostracized and face financial ruin if word gets out that they passed a choking child and didn't help. People don't like cold heartless doctors.

 

They can pass by someone with brain cancer that takes expensive and lengthy treatment, And not face social sanctions.

Same thing with a farmer, if a man starves because the farmer won't give him an apple that looks bad.

 

Hell, if we're taking it to an extreme. I can imagine that a farmer would be ostracized by his community if he help what he could in a time of drought and famine.

[D-Rex Naptime]

I was debating a friend once who said that it was unethical to profit from illness. If that were true, no one would ever be cured of anything...we would just "help" people to death. I'm aware of no principle which supports the notion that all care given must be done at the net loss of the care giver.

 

The worst part is that since this conversation, this person considers himself a libertarian, but I'm sure has no idea what it means...has anyone gotten through to these people?

[Pepin]

It is important to put the question into full context. What you are asking is "do you have the right to use force against someone if they do not save a drowning person?".Granted that all threats of force are essentially threats of death, the question because as to whether killing a person for not saving another who is drowning is morally justifiable.

[Openeye]

It is important to put the question into full context. What you are asking is "do you have the right to use force against someone if they do not save a drowning person?".Granted that all threats of force are essentially threats of death, the question because as to whether killing a person for not saving another who is drowning is morally justifiable.

I do not understand why you make the leap to capital punishment the moment force is mentioned.

 

It would be pointless to threaten someone with force during the event itself, in fact if someone was present and able to make such a threat they should simply ignore the individual standing their gawking at a child drowning and save the child in question. Afterwards condemning the gawkers actions, and perhaps informing the community of the individuals inaction.

 

Now say the gawker is the only one around for the drowning and people show up afterwards. The community then has every right to start an investigation to determine if said individual was capable of saving the child, and if they determine that person could have indeed saved that person, and decided not to either out of sloth or malevolence then the community can render a verdict of negligent homicide. Because of that individuals inaction another died due to a completely avoidable reason. This does not warrant a death sentence, but perhaps temporary removal from society. In an Ancap world most likely they would be financially ostracized.

 

I’m not really a fan of the “well we would just brand him a dick” mentality. Someone is being a dick when they cut you off in traffic, not when they let another human being die, or arguably actively contribute to their demise.

[Pepin]

I do not understand why you make the leap to capital punishment the moment force is mentioned.

 

It would be pointless to threaten someone with force during the event itself, in fact if someone was present and able to make such a threat they should simply ignore the individual standing their gawking at a child drowning and save the child in question. Afterwards condemning the gawkers actions, and perhaps informing the community of the individuals inaction.

 

Now say the gawker is the only one around for the drowning and people show up afterwards. The community then has every right to start an investigation to determine if said individual was capable of saving the child, and if they determine that person could have indeed saved that person, and decided not to either out of sloth or malevolence then the community can render a verdict of negligent homicide. Because of that individuals inaction another died due to a completely avoidable reason. This does not warrant a death sentence, but perhaps temporary removal from society. In an Ancap world most likely they would be financially ostracized.

 

It is because all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. This is often a focus in the "against me" argument.

 

If you charge the man with negligent homicide and require damages to the family be paid, if the man does not pay, he'll likely receive a letter. If he ignores that letter, he'll get a few calls. If ignores those calls and people come to his house, he may kick them off his property. If people come to his place of work and ask him there, he may simply refuse to pay. If people come to take his money by force or imprison, he may retaliate with violence and in the process be shot down. The only way to a ruling can be binding upon the other person is with force.

 

Though this is often understood with respect to government law, say if you didn't pay your taxes, it is applicable in cases where  . The solution as you and others have alluded to is to not use force against the person, but to rather use voluntary means to ostracize them. Various stores and utility companies can refuse to associate with him and deny him services. Of course the man can just accept the terms of social isolation, but it is more likely that he will voluntarily comply.

[D-Rex Naptime]

All prison terms, sanctions, and so forth are backed by the threat of violence. If you resist fines, or arrest, violence will be used against you. If you further resist that violence, you'll be shot. It isn't that the sentence itself is capital punishment.

 

The point isn't that no force should ever be used in response to negligent homocide, it is whether or not someone consented to the Good Samaritan laws in the first place. If there was anarchy and DROs, the inevestigations into these cases would be costly. They would hope to limo those risks with an consentual agreement and I'm sure being a Good Samaritan, as well as nearly all social and ethical laws today, would find its way into the agreement. Therefore, if you consent and you violate the agreement, force would be justified. If there was no such agreement made between the gawker and his/her DRO then the bereaved's DRO would still pursue an investigation and/or trial which the gawker would have consented to.

 

Of course this doesn't address the dilemma of the gawker not belonging to a DRO at all. If that is the case, then there is no one around to represent the gawker's rights and would therefore be subject to the laws of bereaved's DRO and the investigation would ensue regardless. In other words, if you don't have a DRO, that still would give you license to harm others, even by negligence.

 

It isn't perfect, but it basically roles out just like a civil case today regardless. Anyone want to talk some sense into me on that one?

[Openeye]

It is because all laws are enforced at the point of a gun. This is often a focus in the "against me" argument.

 

 

Yes and laws would still exist in an anarchist society. Would they not be enforced?

 

The individual who is fully capable of saving another human being from certain death yet decides not to is not justified in his inaction, they are in fact an aggressor as they have made a conscious choice to let someone die for no reason other than selfishness.

 

If the individual in question is proven guilty then all the situations in your second paragraph are irrelevant, because the individual has sacrificed their liberty by compromising the liberty of another individual resulting in their death. Law enforcement would then have right to take the individual in to custody, and yes against the individuals will if necessary. I still consider isolation from society by means of rehab centers to be demonstrably more effective than financial exile, as financial exile would more than likely drive an individual already predisposed to commit immoral actions to commit more immoral actions out of desperation due to being subject to the state of nature.

 

Is this force I describe unjust? If so why?

 

 

All prison terms, sanctions, and so forth are backed by the threat of violence. If you resist fines, or arrest, violence will be used against you. If you further resist that violence, you'll be shot. It isn't that the sentence itself is capital punishment.

 

This is because we currently live a violent state run society. In a stateless society proportional force would have to be practiced, if not the enforcement agent who escalates the use of force unjustly would be condemned and brought to justice. 

[Alan C.]

Like I said, it depends upon circumstances. Once cannot simply assume that others have an obligation.

 

Family of seven drown in Chinese reservoir after daughter falls in and they form a human chain in doomed attempt to rescue her because none of them can swim

[AncapFTW]

Yes and laws would still exist in an anarchist society. Would they not be enforced?

 

The individual who is fully capable of saving another human being from certain death yet decides not to is not justified in his inaction, they are in fact an aggressor as they have made a conscious choice to let someone die for no reason other than selfishness.

 

If the individual in question is proven guilty then all the situations in your second paragraph are irrelevant, because the individual has sacrificed their liberty by compromising the liberty of another individual resulting in their death. Law enforcement would then have right to take the individual in to custody, and yes against the individuals will if necessary. I still consider isolation from society by means of rehab centers to be demonstrably more effective than financial exile, as financial exile would more than likely drive an individual already predisposed to commit immoral actions to commit more immoral actions out of desperation due to being subject to the state of nature.

 

Is this force I describe unjust? If so why?

 

 

 

This is because we currently live a violent state run society. In a stateless society proportional force would have to be practiced, if not the enforcement agent who escalates the use of force unjustly would be condemned and brought to justice.

The coma test comes to mind in this situation.