5 ms·

Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty. But I world argue, that supporting a

by wtdata 7y ago

Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty. But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty. I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine. EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.

baud147258 7y ago
Also perhaps preventing human traffickers from loading people on boats that can't cross the sea, leading them to their death.
gamblor956 7y ago
1) Under EU law, if they had been using boats, they would have had a legal duty to save drowning migrants. This is why they switched to drones--no legal duty. 3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid. That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Who pays for so many boats? The drones are used to make the security more efficient. If the drones see migrants they alert nearby ships that turn the migrants back. If they see them drowning you can be sure they send boats anyway. It's really an efficiency solution, I'm not sure why you try to make this an evil conspiracy.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I'm not making this a conspiracy, you are. They've stated they don't use boats because drones are cheaper and don't trigger rescue responsibilities.

by wtdata 7y ago

baud147258 7y ago

Also perhaps preventing human traffickers from loading people on boats that can't cross the sea, leading them to their death.

gamblor956 7y ago

1) Under EU law, if they had been using boats, they would have had a legal duty to save drowning migrants. This is why they switched to drones--no legal duty. 3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid. That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.

thefounder 7y ago
Who pays for so many boats? The drones are used to make the security more efficient. If the drones see migrants they alert nearby ships that turn the migrants back. If they see them drowning you can be sure they send boats anyway. It's really an efficiency solution, I'm not sure why you try to make this an evil conspiracy.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  I'm not making this a conspiracy, you are. They've stated they don't use boats because drones are cheaper and don't trigger rescue responsibilities.