Trump just won

[Juma]

Yes I am serious.

Someone needs a ride to get surgery done and you don't offer it to them when you can, yes, you are hurting them.

Did you think you weren't?

Someone desperately needs money and they ask you for help and you don't offer it, yes, you are hurting them.

I pretty much think that's commonsense.

No. You fail to understand the difference between fail to help and hurt. If you refuse to help they are in no worse position than before they asked for your help, you have not harmed them.

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

 

[fast]

It's bad enough that I'm typing on an iPad one letter at a time, but to type out a full thoughtful response for it to all be lost because on an Internet connection interruption really drains my enthusiasm.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No. You fail to understand the difference between fail to help and hurt. If you refuse to help they are in no worse position than before they asked for your help, you have not harmed them.

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

Doing nothing when you could help is not the same as going out of your way to hurt someone. Seriously. There are no sins of omission, only commission.

 

[credoconsolans]

No. You fail to understand the difference between fail to help and hurt. If you refuse to help they are in no worse position than before they asked for your help, you have not harmed them.

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

Yup.

 

[abaddon]

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

Yup.

Was the discussion one of ethics or law? I can see a legalistic mind (ie, a fucked up mind) just spouting off about what laws might or might not require of them. Ethics, among real people, will be distinguishable from legalities and is the more important matter.

If it is a legal one though, it’s not 100% clear that there’s no duty to rescue. You get into further distinctions about tort law and common law and other, and decide which you want to use to determine this.

If you see a child drowning but don’t help, ethically speaking it’s both an act of great callousness and you have assisted in the death.

If it helps to reach the legalistic minds, imagine your own child drowning. Now imagine you do nothing. What’s your ethical, moral culpability?

So, if that got through, then tell us why a stranger’s child is a world of difference from your own.

 

[fast]

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

Yup.

That is as twisted as confusing the act of doing something with the non-act of doing nothing.

If you're driving too fast and rear-end someone and they become injured, and if you do absolutely nothing to mitigate the consequential damages of the aftermath by (for instance) calling 911 to summon help, I will agree that you did absolutely nothing after the accident to help, and I will sympathize with those that argue that you did something and that what you did was allow their injuries to go untreated allowing for greater harm, but I can still keep my eye on the ball and recognize that the wrong that came after the accident is born of inaction, not action.

If you move into a new house and ask your new rich neighbors to furnish your electric deposit so that you can get power and lights, no one (in their tree) is going think it's their responsibility, duty, or obligation to help. This isn't a failure to help. It's an example of not helping, but it's not a failure to help ... because there is no responsibility, duty, or obligation to help as there was in the rear end example. Not helping in that scenario is a failure to help. In that instance, it's reasonable to regard not helping as hurting, but in instances devoid of responsibility, duty, or obligation, not helping doesn't equate to hurting others when help isn't rendered to those that request help.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just curious ...

Now that Trump will be president instead of Hillary, will Democrats remember that they don't like war? Or top-down trade deals?

Just some stuff that Democrats are supposed to dislike but for the last 8 years loved.

 

[Juma]

Yup.

That is as twisted as confusing the act of doing something with the non-act of doing nothing.

If you're driving too fast and rear-end someone and they become injured, and if you do absolutely nothing to mitigate the consequential damages of the aftermath by (for instance) calling 911 to summon help, I will agree that you did absolutely nothing after the accident to help, and I will sympathize with those that argue that you did something and that what you did was allow their injuries to go untreated allowing for greater harm, but I can still keep my eye on the ball and recognize that the wrong that came after the accident is born of inaction, not action.

If you move into a new house and ask your new rich neighbors to furnish your electric deposit so that you can get power and lights, no one (in their tree) is going think it's their responsibility, duty, or obligation to help. This isn't a failure to help. It's an example of not helping, but it's not a failure to help ... because there is no responsibility, duty, or obligation to help as there was in the rear end example. Not helping in that scenario is a failure to help. In that instance, it's reasonable to regard not helping as hurting, but in instances devoid of responsibility, duty, or obligation, not helping doesn't equate to hurting others when help isn't rendered to those that request help.

If you have the means of helping someone, the cost is very small, and there no is reason not to help and you are fully aware of this then you are fully responsible for the damage.

How grave this hurt is of course depending of how bad it becomes if you dont help.

That you dont see this is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, you aren't fully responsible for damage you didn't cause.

That you think there is such a thing as a sin of omission and not just a sin of commission is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

 

[LordKiran]

That is as twisted as confusing the act of doing something with the non-act of doing nothing.

If you're driving too fast and rear-end someone and they become injured, and if you do absolutely nothing to mitigate the consequential damages of the aftermath by (for instance) calling 911 to summon help, I will agree that you did absolutely nothing after the accident to help, and I will sympathize with those that argue that you did something and that what you did was allow their injuries to go untreated allowing for greater harm, but I can still keep my eye on the ball and recognize that the wrong that came after the accident is born of inaction, not action.

If you move into a new house and ask your new rich neighbors to furnish your electric deposit so that you can get power and lights, no one (in their tree) is going think it's their responsibility, duty, or obligation to help. This isn't a failure to help. It's an example of not helping, but it's not a failure to help ... because there is no responsibility, duty, or obligation to help as there was in the rear end example. Not helping in that scenario is a failure to help. In that instance, it's reasonable to regard not helping as hurting, but in instances devoid of responsibility, duty, or obligation, not helping doesn't equate to hurting others when help isn't rendered to those that request help.

If you have the means of helping someone, the cost is very small, and there no is reason not to help and you are fully aware of this then you are fully responsible for the damage.

How grave this hurt is of course depending of how bad it becomes if you dont help.

That you dont see this is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

I am not obliged to go out and vote. There is no law that states I must utilize the political privilage of showing my support for a candidate. This is especially true given that voting for president is closer to the Brexit referendum than anything legally binding.

 

[bilby]

WTF?
If you dont help with no significant cost for you then you are definitely hurting.

Doing nothing when you could help is not the same as going out of your way to hurt someone. Seriously. There are no sins of omission, only commission.

Seriously, that philosophy is very badly at odds with morality as it is practiced by most humans.

Humans are emotional, and they are a social species. Any philosophy that denies or ignores these facts as part of their set of axioms is doomed; At best such a philosophy will be widely derided. At worst, it will be implemented as part of public policy. The results of the latter are invariably ugly.

 

[bilby]

No, you aren't fully responsible for damage you didn't cause.

That you think there is such a thing as a sin of omission and not just a sin of commission is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

Nobody said 'fully' other than you.

The phrase 'there is such a thing' here clearly rules out even 'partly', and it is there that your error lies.

 

[bilby]

If you have the means of helping someone, the cost is very small, and there no is reason not to help and you are fully aware of this then you are fully responsible for the damage.

How grave this hurt is of course depending of how bad it becomes if you dont help.

That you dont see this is exactly what is wrong with the USA.

I am not obliged to go out and vote. There is no law that states I must utilize the political privilage of showing my support for a candidate. This is especially true given that voting for president is closer to the Brexit referendum than anything legally binding.

There are indeed such laws. They don't apply in your jurisdiction, but they do in mine - and there is no good evidence that they do more harm than good.

The idiosyncrasies of your 5% of the planet are not universal truths.

I do agree that there are significant commonalities between selecting a single person to hold executive power and the Brexit referendum.

For a start, neither is best done by simple majority voting; and both questions are probably better addressed by expert, rather than via popular, opinion.

 

[LordKiran]

I am not obliged to go out and vote. There is no law that states I must utilize the political privilage of showing my support for a candidate. This is especially true given that voting for president is closer to the Brexit referendum than anything legally binding.

There are indeed such laws. They don't apply in your jurisdiction, but they do in mine - and there is no good evidence that they do more harm than good.

The idiosyncrasies of your 5% of the planet are not universal truths.

I do agree that there are significant commonalities between selecting a single person to hold executive power and the Brexit referendum.

For a start, neither is best done by simple majority voting; and both questions are probably better addressed by expert, rather than via popular, opinion.

I just resent these attempts to pin blame on me for the outcome of the election. As if to suggest it's my fault none of the candidates appealed to my priorities as a voter. Would it still be my fault if I voted for Stein? If I were to vote at all it would either be for her or Johnson. So you can't say if I had voted it would have been for HRC. In either case the outcome is the same.

 

[LordKiran]

Doing nothing when you could help is not the same as going out of your way to hurt someone. Seriously. There are no sins of omission, only commission.

Seriously, that philosophy is very badly at odds with morality as it is practiced by most humans.

Humans are emotional, and they are a social species. Any philosophy that denies or ignores these facts as part of their set of axioms is doomed; At best such a philosophy will be widely derided. At worst, it will be implemented as part of public policy. The results of the latter are invariably ugly.

I mean Buddhism is a thing and has been for something like a thousand years.

 

[fast]

There are indeed such laws. They don't apply in your jurisdiction, but they do in mine - and there is no good evidence that they do more harm than good.

The idiosyncrasies of your 5% of the planet are not universal truths.

I do agree that there are significant commonalities between selecting a single person to hold executive power and the Brexit referendum.

For a start, neither is best done by simple majority voting; and both questions are probably better addressed by expert, rather than via popular, opinion.

I just resent these attempts to pin blame on me for the outcome of the election. As if to suggest it's my fault none of the candidates appealed to my priorities as a voter. Would it still be my fault if I voted for Stein? If I were to vote at all it would either be for her or Johnson. So you can't say if I had voted it would have been for HRC. In either case the outcome is the same.

There are those (many, I might add) that hold the belief that Americans have the responsibility to vote. The majority of Americans (I would suspect) hold that view. I, on the other hand, have a contrary view with a twist that I think many can find an appreciation for--not all, but many, if not garboodles. Although I do not have the view that espouses the opinion that we have a responsibility to vote, I do have the view that if we do choose to exercise our right to vote, we should do so responsibly. That view is a twist on the saying, "with rights come responsibility." I don't espouse the view that rights beget responsibility, but responsibly we should vote if we so choose to.

 

[Juma]

All people are always responsible for what happens, responsible in relation to how much they can do. To not act is as much an action as to act.

 

[skepticalbip]

All people are always responsible for what happens, responsible in relation to how much they can do. To not act is as much an action as to act.

Sounds like you could be a Rush fan, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

 

[fast]

Doing nothing when you could help is not the same as going out of your way to hurt someone. Seriously. There are no sins of omission, only commission.

Seriously, that philosophy is very badly at odds with morality as it is practiced by most humans.

Humans are emotional, and they are a social species. Any philosophy that denies or ignores these facts as part of their set of axioms is doomed; At best such a philosophy will be widely derided. At worst, it will be implemented as part of public policy. The results of the latter are invariably ugly.

If my neighbor is hungry and comes to me for something to eat, I will not let him go away hungry. No way in holy hell would I do that. The issue is whether not helping equates to hurting, and I think the answer hinges on an underlying issue, namely whether I have an obligation to help when asked--not whether I help if asked.

If I am a caregiver to my neighbor and fail to provide care, then I'm not living up to my responsibility and can rightly be said to be hurting someone by my failure to help when asked.

Now, if I have no duty to help, and if I don't help, I ought not be regarded as one that is hurting my neighbor. It sounds to me that if you want to argue that I am hurting my neighbor, you need to argue that I do in fact have a responsibility, duty, or obligation despite not being a caregiver.

I don't mind being called irresponsible when I'm in fact irresponsible. For example, if I sign up for a credit card and make all my payments on time for twenty years except for one payment ten years ago being a single day late, then yes, call me an irresponsible little shit for not always paying as agreed. I can handle that, for either I did or did not always and without fail live up to my responsibility to pay it on time.

But, don't say I've hurt you by not helping you unless you can show I most certainly had an obligation to do so. If I have an obligation to help every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses my path, that's one thing, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more that an espoused view that I have an obligation. In fact, I'm quite unreasonable to even argumentation, so if you come at me merely armed with an argument, expect not to get through to me, as I don't take accusations of having an obligation to do as others claim too easily.

 

[Juma]

Seriously, that philosophy is very badly at odds with morality as it is practiced by most humans.

Humans are emotional, and they are a social species. Any philosophy that denies or ignores these facts as part of their set of axioms is doomed; At best such a philosophy will be widely derided. At worst, it will be implemented as part of public policy. The results of the latter are invariably ugly.

If my neighbor is hungry and comes to me for something to eat, I will not let him go away hungry. No way in holy hell would I do that. The issue is whether not helping equates to hurting, and I think the answer hinges on an underlying issue, namely whether I have an obligation to help when asked--not whether I help if asked.

If I am a caregiver to my neighbor and fail to provide care, then I'm not living up to my responsibility and can rightly be said to be hurting someone by my failure to help when asked.

Now, if I have no duty to help, and if I don't help, I ought not be regarded as one that is hurting my neighbor. It sounds to me that if you want to argue that I am hurting my neighbor, you need to argue that I do in fact have a responsibility, duty, or obligation despite not being a caregiver.

I don't mind being called irresponsible when I'm in fact irresponsible. For example, if I sign up for a credit card and make all my payments on time for twenty years except for one payment ten years ago being a single day late, then yes, call me an irresponsible little shit for not always paying as agreed. I can handle that, for either I did or did not always and without fail live up to my responsibility to pay it on time.

But, don't say I've hurt you by not helping you unless you can show I most certainly had an obligation to do so. If I have an obligation to help every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses my path, that's one thing, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more that an espoused view that I have an obligation. In fact, I'm quite unreasonable to even argumentation, so if you come at me merely armed with an argument, expect not to get through to me, as I don't take accusations of having an obligation to do as others claim too easily.

No. It has nothing to do with wether you have an obligation or not. By not helping you are hurting. Sometimes the hurt is small or there is some other aspects that makes the ok to "deal that hurt". For example it can be important to not help somebody that must learn by doing it herself etc.