What Would You Do...?

[Deleted]

If he decided not to attempt a rescue for fear of getting sued if it went wrong - well, that is more understandable than not wanting to catch cold.

[Hunny]

He has a moral obligation to save the kid,
a legal one isnt necessary, he's just a scumbag if he walks by
and lets someone die he could have easily saved.

Should we pass laws like the "good samaritan" law mentioned on Seinfeld?
I dont think so. You cant compel people to put themselves in potential danger.

And I would say you cant even compel people to help when they're in no danger.
That would be just way too problematic to apply.

[mikemarshall]

Unfortunately I cannot swim but if I could I would of course attempt to rescue the youngster.

(As someone who nearly drowned as a child and has a total fear of water it would be totally wrong IMO to act in any other manner).

[Deleted]

I can't swim and I wouldn't attempt it: I'd go as fast as I could to find someone who could.

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Confession



You have been married 70 years to your mate.......you know time is drawing to
a close..........you had an affair 50 years ago......it has always weighed heavily
on you......you would like to relieve your conscious and confess to your mate
........you will feel better.....but it will cause your mate pain........do you do it?

[sadie1263]

This is such a hard one........on one hand it would probably be nice to get it out and ask for forgiveness........but what if they couldn't deal with it.....and it caused enormous problems.

[Big Lin]

I think I'd keep quiet; if it was a long time ago what would be the point of raising it now?

It would only cause hurt and how would it benefit anyone?

The time to have come clean about it was when it happened - not all these years later.

I think, anyway.

[Hunny]

It would depend on my religious beliefs. If I thought there was an afterlife, I'd have to tell.
But if I didn't believe in an afterlife, then I'd let the secret die with me, to spare my partner's feelings.
It would just be pointless to upset him, if there's no continuing ahead. And my conscience ..same thing
..pointless to worry about it, since soon it wont exist.

Love is when you just couldnt think of hurting someone, and that's all telling him would do really.

But now if you believe in God and all that, oh..mm..maybe go ask the priest, or turn to the book.
I don't know what the rules or important issues would be regarding that.

In either case it might be important to someone to have never have been a lie to the other person.
I think it is. But after 50 years of being one? mm...yea, let the secret die with you. It's too late. You've already been a lie, lifelong. I bet that could cause a world of hurt right when everything ought to be golden like a sunset.

[Big Lin]

I believe in God and an afterlife (though not in hell; my God couldn't possibly sentence people to eternity of torment) but I'd throw myself on God's mercy when I stood before Him being judged rather than hurting my partner.

(Of course, I HAVEN'T cheated on my husband!)

[Synonym]

Not sure I agree with the motive of the confession if it is to make oneself feel better.

How can I put this. I think that to confess would be the right thing to do (even if done for the wrong reason) as I do dislike the thought of one adult lying to me, another adult, in order to protect me from hurt, as if I was a child.

Even if I could not do anything about it I think I would still prefer to know the truth about my relationship or situation and make my own decision on what I think about it or whether to forgive or continue in the relationship. That should be my decision. If my life is or has been a lie of some sort I'd want to know about it not go on being fooled. I think I'd have the right to know.

All that said, I can of course see the attraction in protecting an adult from hurtful knowledge for their own good. So while I think it would be wrong to do this, I can see why someone would.

[Deleted]

for a start off I'm useless at keeping secrets like this , I would have confessed long ago. So I probably would fess up and it wouldn't surprise me if the old guy had a few secrets of his own to share lol

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2013 22:46:52 GMT Big Lin said:

I believe in God and an afterlife (though not in hell; my God couldn't possibly sentence people to eternity of torment) but I'd throw myself on God's mercy when I stood before Him being judged rather than hurting my partner.

(Of course, I HAVEN'T cheated on my husband!)

sorry this is off topic but I wanted to ask you if you don't believe in hell , where do you think the non believers end up?

[Big Lin]

I don't think God looks at people that way. It's not what you believe (though that helps I guess) but what you DO that He cares about.

I believe good non-believers go to heaven when they die; so do good believers.

For bad people (believers or non-believers) I think He has a kind of transitional place where they go to learn how to put right what they did during their time on earth

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Hit and Forget?



You were at a party the night before.......you had a little too much to drink but drove home anyway. You are watching the news and there was a hit and run, resulting in the death of a pedestrian. It happened on the route you would have driven. You seem to remember something.........but it’s fuzzy. You go outside and look at your car.....and there is a new dent on the front. You can’t tell what it is from.....really.......there’s no blood.....or clothing.....or anything like that........

Could it have been you? You don't know for sure. What was the person doing out walking in the dark? It might not have been your fault.....maybe the person was drinking also and wandered out there. If you turn yourself in.......you could get a ticket for leaving the scene.....the deceased’s family will probably sue you.......or they could charge you with negligent homicide charges. They probably will never figure out it was you on their own.

What do you do?

[Hunny]

Well, I don't know what you'll think of me for this, but it would serve no purpose to turn myself in, other than to volunteer the rest of my life away being tortured by encagement, so..no thanks to that! If they don't catch me, good!

My volunteering to suffer isn't going to change anything that happened.

And the victim's family will be fine with "killed by hit and run" as what happened. ..Seriously. I cant imagine why GETTING REVENGE (tormenting the person who drove drunk) will make them "feel better". Why would it? If anything, it will just give them cause to focus and have even more anger!

No, if they want closure...a hit and run driver killed him, end of story.

Don't I suck?

Well, would YOU turn yourself in??

[Deleted]

This is a little like the one we had earlier, but in the previous one we had an innocent driver thinking she had hit the person, and there was no question of drink.

I'd feel awful. I think I'd have to know one way or the other, but how would I explain to the police that I have an unexplained dent, and think it might have happened while I was driving the previous night?

I might lie through my teeth and say I thought it was an animal I'd hit and thought it had run off. A lie, of course, and probably one that doesn't bear close scrutiny.

Accident investigations have come along way and information gathered at the scene will probably show where in the road the pedestrian was when hit and whether the car could have avoided it.

[Deleted]

Probably not but I don't think it's got anythin g to do with revenege.

I'd probably be scared of what might happen and if it wasn't sure then I'd probably let it lie.

Cowardly mayebe.

[Synonym]

Hunny, couldn't you make that argument about any crime though? I think the family might see it as justice rather than revenge.

[Deleted]

The family might well appreciate some sort of closure; someone coming forward may well shed some light on what happened.

I am sure I have driven a little over the limit in my youth, but can't believe that I was ever so far gone that I could hit someone without knowing it. That dent....hmm.

[Hunny]

Jan 31, 2013 22:23:36 GMT Synonym said:

Hunny, couldn't you make that argument about any crime though? I think the family might see it as justice rather than revenge.

Is there a difference between justice and revenge?

[Synonym]

Feb 1, 2013 8:35:53 GMT Hunny said:

Is there a difference between justice and revenge?

They may overlap to a degree. But I think that justice might have more constraints on the level of punishment for one thing.

For instance mafia revenge and little old lady revenge for the same transgression may differ, but justice may only require an amount of punishment that is closer to that the little old lady might dish out.

Also revenge, to me, suggests something that is purely for the personal gratification of the wronged parties. Nothing wrong with that but justice is about more than that. It is about paying the 'right' price to atone. Of course while a person is atoning others may feel gratification at the same time.

Plus the elelemnt of deterrent to others in committing the same crime when people that do it are publically visibly punished. That is part of justice also though not sure it is part of revenge.

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



The Partiality of Friendship



Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul
has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more
qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing
that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially
tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that
friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires,
partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?

[sadie1263]

Yikes.........I believe in a case like that you should excuse yourself from the position to choose........too much of a conflict of interest........

I know I would probably choose my friend and fairly certain it would come back and bite me in the ass at a later point.

[DAS (formerly BushAdmirer)]

No

[Synonym]

I'm not sure what friendship would morally permit in this case. Nepotism and favouritism are usually frowned upon as wrong. I would try and get someone else to make the decision. If that is not possible, I'd hope I would pick the best candidate.