Man saves drowning family, but they leave him to drown in return
259 replies, posted
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36798919]Having a family doesn't give you the right to leave someone who just helped you to die, you should at least do SOMETHING, even if it doesn't entail risking your own life.[/QUOTE]
Well a crowd had already formed and they tried to leave. Why didn't anybody in the crowd attempt to rescue him? Does his saving them warrant reciprocal altruism? People cannot be morally obligated to do any action, free will is the basis for morality. The family is just as morally responsible as everyone else in the crowd there.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798903]if the only way to save my family (say I'm in some sort of "saw" scenario, or battle royale kind of thing where if I kill the other family, mine will be let go), I will kill the other family with as little hesitation as possible. Don't think I'm trying to look like some sort of stoic badass here, I would probably feel horrible about myself and feel bad for doing it, but I wouldn't regret the decision.[/QUOTE]
You're still a pretty bad person if you're willing to sacrifice others for your own gain.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798974]Well a crowd had already formed and they tried to leave. Why didn't anybody in the crowd attempt to rescue him? Does his saving them warrant reciprocal altruism? People cannot be morally obligated to do any action, free will is the basis for morality. The family is just as morally responsible as everyone else in the crowd there.[/QUOTE]
You just said you're morally obligated to save your family foremost. And I'd much faster put happiness in front of free will. Hell, I'd argue there isn't even such a thing as free will.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798974]Well a crowd had already formed and they tried to leave. Why didn't anybody in the crowd attempt to rescue him? Does his saving them warrant reciprocal altruism? People cannot be morally obligated to do any action, free will is the basis for morality. The family is just as morally responsible as everyone else in the crowd there.[/QUOTE]
I was never defending the crowd, but if someone has just saved your ass I think it's fair to expect them to do at least something in return.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798974]Well a crowd had already formed and they tried to leave. Why didn't anybody in the crowd attempt to rescue him? Does his saving them warrant reciprocal altruism? People cannot be morally obligated to do any action, free will is the basis for morality. The family is just as morally responsible as everyone else in the crowd there.[/QUOTE]
If the family didn't want to risk itself then the least they could've done was incite the crowd to take action, not fucking disregard the person who just saved your lives and walk away.
It's not about not risking yourself to save the guy (even though reciprocity dictates you should) , it's about the complete lack of empathy displayed by those people.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36798991]You just said you're morally obligated to save your family foremost. And I'd much faster put happiness in front of free will. Hell, I'd argue there isn't even such a thing as free will.[/QUOTE]
If there is no free will, there is no morality. In which case we have no right to judge the family in any way. If there is free will, there is morality, and it is the basis for morality, in which case the family cannot be obligated to act against their own free will. Either way, the family, though dickish, did nothing wrong.
What were they doing in such a strong current in the first place?
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799019]If there is no free will, there is no morality. In which case we have no right to judge the family in any way. If there is free will, there is morality, and it is the basis for morality, in which case the family cannot be obligated to act against their own free will. Either way, the family, though dickish, did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
I don't even understand this type of morality you're talking about. What kind of morality says it's ok to leave someone to die simply because you have the right to choose?
such is life in china... it's a man eat dog world out there...
[QUOTE=Lankist;36798958]If all of society shared prooboo's batshit crazy, we wouldn't have a society.
Kind of motherfucker who wants to benefit from society but never contribute to it. "You can help me out if you want, but I'll [I]never[/I] help you."[/QUOTE]
Sounds like the batshit version of a capitalistic society that most of FP doesn't want to gravitate towards where any form of compassion = handout unless it's towards me. Damnit where's our sense of unity?
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798795]No, but I have parents, and when I was a toddler, I know for a fact that if I were at risk of being killed, my parents (and any good parent, really), would murder someone to protect their child. That's the parent's most basic job, to protect their child no matter what.[/QUOTE]
I just have to know. After being taken out of the water, [B]what danger[/B] would they be in had the mother helped the man who [B]just saved their lives[/B].
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;36799008]If the family didn't want to risk itself then the least they could've done was incite the crowd to take action, not fucking disregard the person who just saved your lives and walk away.[/quote]
They're not obligated to do anything, just like the man who saved them isn't obligated to help them but chose to do so. He didn't go into the river with the assumption that he would be saved in return, if it were to happen. If he did, then it's not altruism.
[quote]It's not about not risking yourself to save the guy, it's about the complete lack of empathy displayed by those people.[/QUOTE]
they're not obligated to feel empathy. some people are just assholes
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799019]If there is no free will, there is no morality. In which case we have no right to judge the family in any way. If there is free will, there is morality, and it is the basis for morality, in which case the family cannot be obligated to act against their own free will. Either way, the family, though dickish, did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
Morality is what should be done. How does that depend on you being able to choose what you want or not? I'd much faster put happiness, which has intrinsic worth (hell, you can't even describe happiness except with the word "good") as the center of morality. Let's say you manage to make a chip that allows you to control someone else's actions , but their conscience is aware and feels everything that happens. Are they irrelevant to morality, then? Since they have n ofree will.
China's the capital of carelessness. I've seen far too many videos of people who get in accidents and whatnot there but no one does shit.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36799052]Sounds like the batshit version of a capitalistic society that most of FP doesn't want to gravitate towards where any form of compassion = handout unless it's towards me. Damnit where's our sense of unity?[/QUOTE]
It's deontological ethics, it's probably the furthest from capitalism you can get
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799019]Either way, the family, though dickish, did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
They left a man to die. If you don't see anything wrong with that then you are beyond an asshole.
You're a fucking parasite. "People should help ME when I'M in trouble but when other people are in trouble then let 'em fucking burn."
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799058]they're not obligated to feel empathy. some people are just assholes[/QUOTE]
and you expect the rest of the world to just be okay with you being an asshole?
what makes you think the people who are willing to work together aren't going to gang the fuck up on you?
It's happening [I]right now[/I], in this very thread. People who spend weeks bitching at each other over trivial points have joined forces for the sole purpose of telling you to go fuck yourself.
It's nice having friends.
Grab any random villain and even they would say this is just frigging evil.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799058]
they're not obligated to feel empathy. some people are just assholes[/QUOTE]
The irony
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799058]They're not obligated to do anything, just like the man who saved them isn't obligated to help them but chose to do so. He didn't go into the river with the assumption that he would be saved in return, if it were to happen. If he did, then it's not altruism.
they're not obligated to feel empathy. some people are just assholes[/QUOTE]
Just because you're not obliged to do it doesn't mean I can't look down on you for not doing it.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799058]They're not obligated to do anything, just like the man who saved them isn't obligated to help them but chose to do so. He didn't go into the river with the assumption that he would be saved in return, if it were to happen. If he did, then it's not altruism.[/QUOTE]
as far as I know, there's technically no such thing as altruism, since whether or not you help someone out is based on how nice the buzz feels when you know you've helped. being nice is almost like a drug - aiding others is just a fortunate side-effect of the next fix.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799019]If there is no free will, there is no morality. In which case we have no right to judge the family in any way. If there is free will, there is morality, and it is the basis for morality, in which case the family cannot be obligated to act against their own free will. Either way, the family, though dickish, did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
Or we accept and understand that objective morality is only the construction of someone who believes in it, and that there are multiple answers and multiple different ways of varied designs to meet complicated questions and problems composed by nature, an incredibly chaotic and complex thing?
Yeah, objectivism makes a whole lot of sense.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36799060]Morality is what should be done. How does that depend on you being able to choose what you want or not?[/quote]
If people are not free to choose their own actions, then they are not responsible for their own actions. If our language which describes "us" "we" "I" "he" "she" etc. describes conscious beings, and if free will does not exist, then it is not the conscious being doing an action, but rather a conglomeration of factors, both inside and outside the person, in which case, in a deterministic world, you are just as responsible for the actions happening as me, and morality is a moot point. Morality judges the free choice of actions. if free choice of actions isn't there, morality cannot judge it because it does not exist
[quote]I'd much faster put happiness, which has intrinsic worth (hell, you can't even describe happiness except with the word "good") as the center of morality. Let's say you manage to make a chip that allows you to control someone else's actions , but their conscience is aware and feels everything that happens. Are they irrelevant to morality, then? Since they have no free will.[/QUOTE]
We'd have to examine the meaning of "free will"
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798262]Once again: morality doesn't apply when you've got a family.
[/QUOTE]
hey guys it's alright for me to run this hooker over she might give my son an STD someday
[QUOTE=Cone;36799150]as far as I know, there's technically no such thing as altruism, since whether or not you help someone out is based on how nice the buzz feels when you know you've helped. being nice is almost like a drug - aiding others is just a fortunate side-effect of the next fix.[/QUOTE]
I'd say altruism depends on the reason for doing it rather than what you get out of it, if you did it solely to feel happy then that wouldn't be altruistic, however if you did it to help someone but felt happy about it afterwards then I'd argue that was altruism.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798829]We're animals.[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes we are. And animals help each other.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism]When [I]fish[/I] are better human beings than you, you (should) know you have a serious problem.[/url]
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799019]Either way, the family, though [B]dickish, did nothing wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm seeing a fundamental contradiction here.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799058]they're not obligated to feel empathy. some people are just assholes[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they're not [I]obligated[/I] to, unless if they don't want to be assholes.
Assholes, by the way, are bad people.
You know:
Morally wrong.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798903]if the only way to save my family (say I'm in some sort of "saw" scenario, or battle royale kind of thing where if I kill the other family, mine will be let go), I will kill the other family with as little hesitation as possible. Don't think I'm trying to look like some sort of stoic badass here, I would probably feel horrible about myself and feel bad for doing it, but I wouldn't regret the decision.[/QUOTE]
SAW AND BATTLE ROYALE ARE FICTION
Apparently adamantium is real, though, seeing as how thick you are.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36798873]It's not simplifying morality, it's describing the family unit. No one [I]made[/I] you have a family, but if you choose to have one, accept the responsibility associated with it. [B]If you can't accept the responsibility of protecting a child to the fullest extent possible, you're going to be a bad parent.[/B][/QUOTE]
"That man looks sick, he might give little Billy a cold
[I]I HAVE TO MURDER HIM[/I]"
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36799030]What were they doing in such a strong current in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Probably drowning kittens or something like that.
Free will doesn't determine there's a correct and objective unspoken morality.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36799159]If people are not free to choose their own actions, then they are not responsible for their own actions. If our language which describes "us" "we" "I" "he" "she" etc. describes conscious beings, and if free will does not exist, then it is not the conscious being doing an action, but rather a conglomeration of factors, both inside and outside the person, in which case, in a deterministic world, you are just as responsible for the actions happening as me, and morality is a moot point. Morality judges the free choice of actions. if free choice of actions isn't there, morality cannot judge it because it does not exist
We'd have to examine the meaning of "free will"[/QUOTE]
Lack of responsibility means that you cannot say people are good, it does not mean you can't say that one situation is better than another and, consequentially, that actions are good.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799180]I'd say altruism depends on the reason for doing it rather than what you get out of it, if you did it solely to feel happy then that wouldn't be altruistic, however if you did it to help someone but felt happy about it afterwards then I'd argue that was altruism.[/QUOTE]
but then you have to wonder if you actually did it to help or if you're just fooling yourself into thinking you're nicer than you are. the distinction is very difficult to make, especially from the biased viewpoint people tend to take when examining themselves.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36799180]I'd say altruism depends on the reason for doing it rather than what you get out of it, if you did it solely to feel happy then that wouldn't be altruistic, however if you did it to help someone but felt happy about it afterwards then I'd argue that was altruism.[/QUOTE]
Personally i'd argue that even if you did it for someone, the end result of feeling good is still present, and the knowledge of that, subconsciously or otherwise is enough to drive you to accept that action, making it selfish in the end.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.