3 ms·

My point was that the person I was responding to is wrong: that not everyone would want a stranger to try and help them in every situation, and that sometimes n

My point was that the person I was responding to is wrong: that not everyone would want a stranger to try and help them in every situation, and that sometimes not helping a stranger in mortal danger really is the ethical choice. I'm aware that we don't know nearly enough details here to judge what he should have done; I was responding to the emotive response that we should laud every attempt to help someone in danger.

lvs 13y ago
You're going through quite a contorted thought process to somehow find fault in an act of selflessness. I have no idea what your motivation to defy logic would be, but I'll try to respond anyway: > not everyone would want a stranger to try and help them in every situation This isn't relevant to the ethics of the situation. When the desires of the man on the tracks can't be ascertained, his life should by default be considered worth saving, as a fellow human being. > sometimes not helping a stranger in mortal danger really is the ethical choice. I have no idea what the "sometimes" are to which you're referring. Barstool philosophers are prone to saying that "sometimes things are other things," which is awfully hard to refute since probability of all events is finite in some universe.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing. I don't think it was a selfish action, and I do think the guy on the track was worth saving. But all the same, what we do know is that two people died because one person tried to save him, when doing nothing would've only had one die. We don't have enough information to know if it was reasonable to try and save him or not, or the ability of the guy to know those facts at the time - the information is too sparse. I was just pointing out that it's quite possible that it was inevitable that the guy on the tracks was going to die, and the guy trying to save him simply made it worse. There are also numerous stories of drowning victims drowning their would-be saviors. I don't think any and every attempt to save someone should be lauded as something good, and think those times we can ascertain that there's a good chance both people will die (versus the chance both will live), we should simply leave the victim to die, painful as it is to sit there impotently watching it happen. Doing otherwise gives is a net negative expectation of the number of people alive, and I can't say that's an ethical choice. I think people (including you) are very emotional about these kinds of situations, and aren't approaching them from a "try to maximize the number of people who live" perspective.

lvs 13y ago

You're going through quite a contorted thought process to somehow find fault in an act of selflessness. I have no idea what your motivation to defy logic would be, but I'll try to respond anyway: > not everyone would want a stranger to try and help them in every situation This isn't relevant to the ethics of the situation. When the desires of the man on the tracks can't be ascertained, his life should by default be considered worth saving, as a fellow human being. > sometimes not helping a stranger in mortal danger really is the ethical choice. I have no idea what the "sometimes" are to which you're referring. Barstool philosophers are prone to saying that "sometimes things are other things," which is awfully hard to refute since probability of all events is finite in some universe.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing. I don't think it was a selfish action, and I do think the guy on the track was worth saving. But all the same, what we do know is that two people died because one person tried to save him, when doing nothing would've only had one die. We don't have enough information to know if it was reasonable to try and save him or not, or the ability of the guy to know those facts at the time - the information is too sparse. I was just pointing out that it's quite possible that it was inevitable that the guy on the tracks was going to die, and the guy trying to save him simply made it worse. There are also numerous stories of drowning victims drowning their would-be saviors. I don't think any and every attempt to save someone should be lauded as something good, and think those times we can ascertain that there's a good chance both people will die (versus the chance both will live), we should simply leave the victim to die, painful as it is to sit there impotently watching it happen. Doing otherwise gives is a net negative expectation of the number of people alive, and I can't say that's an ethical choice. I think people (including you) are very emotional about these kinds of situations, and aren't approaching them from a "try to maximize the number of people who live" perspective.