Moral Obligations...

I like the idea of having intelligent conversation on this site, so I decided to try and contribute to the topics.

A friend and I were discussing whether or not a person has a moral obligation to save another person, if they are capable of doing so?

Scenario: You're walking by a lake and you see a girl or a boy drowning. You just happen to be an excellent swimmer. But you are running late for a very important meeting. Or maybe you have on new clothes that you don't want to ruin. Or maybe you just don't want to mess up your hair. The lake is in an isolated area and if you don't help, chances are no one else will.

Do you have a moral obligation to save that person? What do you all think?

of course you do. I don't think you've thought out the details.

We're not talking about an incident here where the consequences don't matter. This is a human life. for every loss of a person there are numerous lives pained and ruined. If someone has the power to prevent that, it becomes a responsibility to do so. I don't think theres a good argument against that.
Feel free to prove me wrong though.

I'm not looking to prove you wrong, dear. Nor, did I present an argument for or against the topic. I am simply asking what you think. I personally think that you DO have a moral obligation to save the person's life. My friend on the other hand does not. I want to see what others think.

I'm sure you don't, I was just wondering what argument COULD possibly argue against saving a human life.

It's my opinion that one would HAVE to help. I mean really. How could anyone live with themself if they didn't? She says that it is her choice whether she does so or not. If she chooses to walk on by the child then so be it. She doesn't HAVE to help if she doesn't want to and she has no obligation to do so. If she wants to be a hero...okay. If not...that's okay too.

she doesn't have to that's true, but she does have a moral obligation to. and it wouldn't be okay if she chose to turn her back on a human life

Let me add another question to this topic. Should there be a legal obligation as well? If you chose not to save the child's life and someone found out that you didn't, should you be able to be punished for not saving the child's life?

Legally speaking you dont have any obligation to intervene, as you do not have a 'duty of care' for that person, therefore if something was to happen to that person, you shouldn't or would not be punished.

morally speaking, if that was a relative of yours i'm sure you would help them, just because it isn't a relative doesnt mean you dont have to. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice, but relative or no relative i would atleast do somthing to help, even calling the emergancy services atleast,

if in a fist aid situation the first aider must first make sure his/her own life is not in any danger prior to performing or carrying out first aid. (Meaning always look after number 1).

HA HA HA Mr Plain I appreciate your frankness and am in hysterics, only from you my friend, only from you...

Nice perspective vix:)

The answer is actually really simple. We respond to domestic animals like we would respond to a homeless kid, not like we respond to a homeless man.

We are used to having to take care of domestic animals, they can't take care of themselves, much like children. Homeless adults, and moreso men than women, because it is much more normal for women to be taken care of than men to be, should be able to take care of themselves. They are seen by some as weak or like failures of society. People have little compassion when it comes to taking care of someone who should be taking care of themselves, yet the homeless animal or children should be taken care of, not kicked in the face.

Great answer Kaitlin, but wrong topic. You took a wrong turn. I think you meant to post this in Moral Obligations part 2.