WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You're right in that I was arguing that it is their moral duty to protect civilians. For example, if you, a civilian, are walking down the street and pass an infant facedown and drowning in a 2 inch puddle of water, you have no legal duty to save it. You cannot be sued (unless you live in an extremely rare jurisdiction that has good samaritan laws). You can sit there and watch it drown or ignore it completely. However, I would argue it's your moral duty as a human to save that infant. You can't get sued, but try showing your face in public after it gets out that you didn't save a baby drowning in a puddle. Just because you can't be sued doesn't mean a moral duty has no teeth.
Why do you think such a person has a moral duty to save the infant?
Could it be argued that the end result of saving the unwanted and uncared for infant will be increased costs (for care and legal proceedings) for the unwanted infant? Does our society really need more unwanted children who live in orphanage and foster homes? What if the infant has already suffered brain damage at this point and will end up being severely retarded? The infant doesn't have an abstract human personality yet--there really isn't a person in there. So, would allowing the infant to drown be similar to a late term abortion or infanticide?
That having been said, perhaps against my better judgment, I'd save the infant. I'm just asking the question because I'm not sure that it's necessarily as black-and-white as you make it sound.
