• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Philosophical question

B

Bird222

Diamond Member
You have been a good, law-abiding citizen your whole life. You find yourself in a situation where your ex spouse is in a 'life or death' scenario and you could save them but you don't so they die. Do you forever forfeit your claim to be a 'good person'? Does that one action negate your whole life?

Side question: Is there a law that says you have to act in such a situation? If so, what is the rationale for compelling someone to act?
 
Millions of people are dying of hunger and poor health care. Are you only a "good person" if you live on rice and beans in a rented room so you can spend all of the money you save to help feed and treat those millions?
 
Everyone makes mistakes.

There is a good samaritan law in many places that says you need to help someone if you can, and you can't be sued if your help goes wrong. I've never seen anyone prosecuted for not helping, though I'm sure it's happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

It does apply between spouses.
 
You go to an animal shelter that practices euthanasia. There are 212 kittens and 34 puppies. If you do not adopt all of the puppies and kittens are you a hideous monster that deserves a slow and painful death?

More seriously, the OP needs some context. What is this situation where only you can save this person, not police, firefighters, EMTs or doctors? Why would it matter in that situation that the person was an ex-spouse?
 
"Good person" is merely a subjective assessment based on your own beliefs. Society has been trained what is good by mass media, but it would be an individual choice whether someone feels bad about letting an ex die. Besides, some people want their ex to die, lol.

No you don't have to act, unless you were a contributor to the death, like shooting up heroin and the death was an O.D. but even then it depends on if you were a facilitator in any way, though many states are facing a heroin epidemic so laws may be changing faster than I can keep track of them.
 
mindless1 said:
"Good person" is merely a subjective assessment based on your own beliefs. Society has been trained what is good by mass media, but it would be an individual choice whether someone feels bad about letting an ex die. Besides, some people want their ex to die, lol.
Click to expand...
And these people are warped.
 
Bird222 said:
You have been a good, law-abiding citizen your whole life. You find yourself in a situation where your ex spouse is in a 'life or death' scenario and you could save them but you don't so they die. Do you forever forfeit your claim to be a 'good person'? Does that one action negate your whole life?
Click to expand...

Depends on the scenario.

Ex drowns while you are watching with a life preserver = bad person.

Ex dies because you didn't devote your life to curing their drug addiction = still a good person.
 
IronWing said:
And these people are warped.
Click to expand...
This is also a subjective assessment. Suppose instead of paying an ex spousal support, or losing half your property in a divorce, they die and you send the money to a relief group for a starving child in Africa to save it's life? Is it more warped to want someone you hate dead and want the innocent child to survive?

IMO there is a difference between wanting something and acting on that desire which is what the OP is getting at, since the scenario was specifically an ex. Is inaction the same as action? To me yes, even an enemy I would save, unless I was sure keeping him alive would cause severe suffering for others, for example a heroin dealer gets no salvation from me.
 
mindless1 said:
This is also a subjective assessment. Suppose instead of paying an ex spousal support, or losing half your property in a divorce, they die and you send the money to a relief group for a starving child in Africa to save it's life? Is it more warped to want someone you hate dead and want the innocent child to survive?

IMO there is a difference between wanting something and acting on that desire which is what the OP is getting at, since the scenario was specifically an ex. Is inaction the same as action? To me yes, even an enemy I would save, unless I was sure keeping him alive would cause severe suffering for others, for example a heroin dealer gets no salvation from me.
Click to expand...
To hate a former spouse to the point of wanting that person dead is warped, period.
 
DaveSimmons said:
You go to an animal shelter that practices euthanasia. There are 212 kittens and 34 puppies. If you do not adopt all of the puppies and kittens are you a hideous monster that deserves a slow and painful death?

More seriously, the OP needs some context. What is this situation where only you can save this person, not police, firefighters, EMTs or doctors? Why would it matter in that situation that the person was an ex-spouse?
Click to expand...
This is a thought experiment. Only you can save them, but for whatever reasons (hate, want sole custody of the kids, whatever) you chose to let them die.
 
Your ex-spouse needs a heart transplant. You're a compatible donor. Are you a bad person if you refuse to give her your heart?

This is a thought experiment. Only you can save them, but for whatever reasons (hate, want sole custody of the kids, whatever) you chose to let them die.
Click to expand...

You still haven't provided enough information to answer the question sensibly.

If I add some of the missing assumptions, then it's possible for me to answer:

Assume there is no risk to yourself in saving the person. For example, you are not required to jump into a raging river.

Assume there is no other significant burden to yourself. For example, you will not have to spend your life savings and live as a pauper, or commit a crime and go to prison. Or give up your morning coffee, I'd really hate that.

Assume the person you are saving is not Lady Hitler, who go on will exterminate millions of people.

Given those assumptions, then yes in my opinion you are a bad person if you refuse to save their life.
 
Last edited:
Bird222 said:
You have been a good, law-abiding citizen your whole life. You find yourself in a situation where your ex spouse is in a 'life or death' scenario and you could save them but you don't so they die. Do you forever forfeit your claim to be a 'good person'? Does that one action negate your whole life?
Click to expand...
Yes

Bird222 said:
Side question: Is there a law that says you have to act in such a situation? If so, what is the rationale for compelling someone to act?
Click to expand...
No, but my beliefs would dictate that I act in that situation. I broke up with my girlfriend just yesterday but I would still step in front of a bus for her.
 
DaveSimmons said:
Your ex-spouse needs a heart transplant. You're a compatible donor. Are you a bad person if you refuse to give her your heart?



You still haven't provided enough information to answer the question sensibly.

If I add some of the missing assumptions, then it's possible for me to answer:

Assume there is no risk to yourself in saving the person. For example, you are not required to jump into a raging river.

Assume there is no other significant burden to yourself. For example, you will not have to spend your life savings and live as a pauper, or commit a crime and go to prison. Or give up your morning coffee, I'd really hate that.

Assume the person you are saving is not Lady Hitler, who go on will exterminate millions of people.

Given those assumptions, then yes in my opinion you are a bad person if you refuse to save their life.
Click to expand...

Yes those are good assumptions. Think ex is hanging off a cliff holding on to a vine. They are slipping and you don't pull them up.
 
There is no legal obligation in common law to try to help a person in distress. The trick is that if you do attempt it and do poorly, you can be liable in negligence. The question of should one try to help is a topic in morality dependent on social, psychological and perhaps philosophical factors.

Letting someone die you could have saved is a sign of an indifference equivalent to killing a person with no remorse.Camus wrote a book about it. His outsider was of the mind that death made life meaningless and feelings for others had no point at all.
 
^ Indifference is only one of at least two possible reasons someone might not attempt to save the person. Two others are wishing their death or putting your own welfare above theirs. The question was posed as saving your ex, not a stranger, so it is not indifference if there is hatred for the ex, but suppose it is the opposite and you don't want your ex to die, then you might still choose not to save them.

The attempt could come with harm to oneself physically or legally, and there is no way to know the attempt will be successful, nor death certain without a specific scenario. If we're allowed to introduce crystal balls into this then the ex could have just used their crystal ball to not be in the predicament where all it takes is one other person to save them.

The choice not to help could come from cowardice or from a concern for the well being of children if they end up parentless, or risking baby's death if the person doing the saving is a pregnant woman. I'm not suggesting these are good OR bad reasons, only that they are not indifference and only a single case is needed to demonstrate something other than indifference.

It would be easier to pretend that everything is black and white in life but often it is not the case. Similarly, letting someone die is not indifference equivalent to killing a person with no remorse. People are seldom indifferent to death that they could prevent, but even if they are, many will often kill without remorse if they aren't being held accountable for it, actively choose to attack which is not indifference.

On the other hand, suppose you strike someone with your car, killing them because they stepped out into traffic. There is no reason for a driver who did nothing wrong to feel remorse. Sad perhaps, but not remorse, and not indifference unless they saw the person in time to stop or veer and didn't try to.
 
You are playing monopoly, you roll the dice, you get a community card that says Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go DO Not Collect $200. Do you go or jump bail and risk landing on a bunch of hotels or just go to jail and wait it out?

Commonsense trumps stupidity.

As to the law, it usually states you are obligated to help someone in need like that and that is why we have Good Samaritan laws to protect you. Don't be an Eloi and let the woman drown and listen to stupid people who are all too afraid of the sue happys. And don't be a fuck and pull out the smartphone camera.
 
ImpulsE69 said:
Yes, if there is a hell you are going there. So sayeth the Spaghetti God.
Click to expand...


I love Spaghetti God's. I eat them with fresh parmesan.

Not sure where the Internet gets off when it is clearly written there shall be no other Gods before me for I am a jealous God.

Anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top