|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
and it has the potential to go awry, causing harm to another or others....
Is there a base responsibility to step in and make an attempt to rectify the situation?
If by standing on the sidelines and allowing something potentially dangerous to occur, does the culpability of the situation transfer by default to the spectator?
What if intervention is beneficial to neither of the other parties involved? Is it then better to opt for the lesser of the two?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> and it has the potential to go awry, causing harm to another or others....
>
> Is there a base responsibility to step in and make an attempt to rectify the situation?
I believe that there is, morally.
>
> If by standing on the sidelines and allowing something potentially dangerous to occur, does the culpability of the situation transfer by default to the spectator?
My understandimng of UK law is that the spectator bcomes guilty of negligence, by inaction. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter (usually). Note that this is not a moral judgement I am making hewre. It is a legal issue.
>
> What if intervention is beneficial to neither of the other parties involved? Is it then better to opt for the lesser of the two?
Confused. Lesser of the two what?
If intervention helps neither party I would hope not to step in. This answer qualifies my other answers
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Marc wrote:
> > and it has the potential to go awry, causing harm to another or others....
> >
> > Is there a base responsibility to step in and make an attempt to rectify the situation?
>
> I believe that there is, morally.
> >
> > If by standing on the sidelines and allowing something potentially dangerous to occur, does the culpability of the situation transfer by default to the spectator?
>
> My understandimng of UK law is that the spectator bcomes guilty of negligence, by inaction. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter (usually). Note that this is not a moral judgement I am making hewre. It is a legal issue.
My referance in this question is purely moral.
> >
> > What if intervention is beneficial to neither of the other parties involved? Is it then better to opt for the lesser of the two?
>
> Confused. Lesser of the two what?
What i unclearly meant here was ""the lesser""
There are two who are involved, both have the potential to be harmed by their actions if left unchecked, but one clearly has the ability to harm the other to a far greater degree.
>
> If intervention helps neither party I would hope not to step in. This answer qualifies my other answers
But is there degrees of help by which harm might still ensue but be deminished somewhat? Is it not better to minimize the hurt?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
To clarify....
I am not being combative here...
I am meerly trying to explain what i was trying to say...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> timmy wrote:
> > Marc wrote:
> > > and it has the potential to go awry, causing harm to another or others....
> > >
> > > Is there a base responsibility to step in and make an attempt to rectify the situation?
> >
> > I believe that there is, morally.
> > >
> > > If by standing on the sidelines and allowing something potentially dangerous to occur, does the culpability of the situation transfer by default to the spectator?
> >
> > My understandimng of UK law is that the spectator bcomes guilty of negligence, by inaction. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter (usually). Note that this is not a moral judgement I am making hewre. It is a legal issue.
>
> My referance in this question is purely moral.
Morally I hope I would step in
> > >
> > > What if intervention is beneficial to neither of the other parties involved? Is it then better to opt for the lesser of the two?
> >
> > Confused. Lesser of the two what?
>
> What i unclearly meant here was ""the lesser""
>
> There are two who are involved, both have the potential to be harmed by their actions if left unchecked, but one clearly has the ability to harm the other to a far greater degree.
> >
> > If intervention helps neither party I would hope not to step in. This answer qualifies my other answers
>
> But is there degrees of help by which harm might still ensue but be deminished somewhat? Is it not better to minimize the hurt?
In this case I stand by the hope that I would not intervene. The key for me is that intervention benefits neither party
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
In this case I stand by the hope that I would not intervene. The key for me is that intervention benefits neither party.
I didnt say that intervention would be of "no" benefit..... I said that it would lessen the effect of their problem.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
OK, if it would lessen the effect of the problem, not actually benefit either participant, and do them no harm, then I would look at my ability to intervene positievely.
If it woudl harm either or both of them I would choose not to intervene unless intervention was genuinely for the greate good,
I have the feeling I am missing something here?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> I have the feeling I am missing something here?
I am not trying to be subversive... Nor underhanded... I was just wondering a question and making attempts to make my queery understood.
but if I am out of line I will withdraw my origional question.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
not out of line at all. I seriously have the feeling I am missing something really obvious in your question is all. I do wish spomeone else would try an answer or two. After that that is what the board is here for.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well we both know the only people that would respond are ones that don't know me...
It doesnt matter.... an aquaintance asked during a conversation and I was just curious.... The quandry might have helped him with a problem.... Oh well
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are, prima facie, a couple of ethical considerations here: beneficence, the idea that one should do good where one can; and noninterference, the rule that one cannot coerce, or impose one's will on, another so long as that individual is not going to do harm to anyone else by his/her actions, whether intentionally or inadvertently. If the situation that you could see going awry would damage no one except possibly the person taking part in the action, I think an obligation to inform the individual of your doubts would exist under the first rule, but the second would rule out any direct action to stop the individual in question from doing what he had chosen to do. This assumes that the individual is an adult, capable (at least on paper) of making conscious decisions.
If, however, the actions that you are suspicious of having a large likelihood of going wrong have the potential to harm a third party, then an intervention may be necessary, if that person has not made a decision to risk the harm in a deliberate way. It is this aspect of the situation that requires intervention in cases of suicide attempts--no one is entitled to hurt the ones who love them by killing themselves, unless they have their loved ones explicit permission--each and every one of them.
But back to your question: Suppose that an adult person, whom you could see from earlier displays of ineptitude on the bunny slope was not an expert skiier, was going to go ski a diamond course. Several things might cross your mind: Maybe he doesnt' know what symbols for various levels of challenges on the slopes mean? Perhaps he doesn't realize just how truly awful he is at skiing? Maybe he is foolishly trying to impress someone? Maybe he's an idiot? In this case, I would say that one has an obligation to raise the matter with the guy and let him know how ill advised this plan is.
Altenatively, one can see this as a very nearly sure way for this guy to harm himself, and if you don't intervene and do something to prevent this course of action, are you violating the primary rule, which in my book anyway, is 'Do no harm.'? If you believe that you are almost certainly going to allow this guy potentially serious bodily harm by allowing him to continue this course of action, even after you have explained the dangers involved, then the primary rule takes precedence over noninterference, and you would be obligated to inform the lift chair operator or the ski patrol. It would depend on the level of injury that you believe the guy could sustain, and the level of certainty with which you believed he would come to that harm.
So you see, this is not an easy question at all...
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In one of your posts, Marc, you stated that an intervention would not benefit anyone, yet "the damage" could somehow be mitigated. I don't get that: surely if there is damage, one party or both will suffer it, unless the damage would fall on a third party. If an intervention would prevent some level of damage, then wouldn't that benefit someone?
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
aj wrote:
>
> In one of your posts, Marc, you stated that an intervention would not benefit anyone, yet "the damage" could somehow be mitigated. I don't get that: surely if there is damage, one party or both will suffer it, unless the damage would fall on a third party. If an intervention would prevent some level of damage, then wouldn't that benefit someone?
that post was misworded....
what i was trying to say was that 2 people are in a frictional event and the intervention would not cure all the problem but it would mitigate it for one of the parties more than the second party.
In a situation such as this I believe the person performing said intervention would be setting himself up as possibly playing favorites therefore alienating the less helped party.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
