by Hope4Others 53 Replies latest jw friends
there is a real dilemma in the situation you mention , because your public liability would be void. and you would be operating in the capacity of a private individual
Now you're getting my point .. the real dilemma is your responsibly and liability in this situation... but it does require setting aside your conscience
to save your own skin however !
Cal
"Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws protecting those from blame by choosing to aid others who are injured or ill. This law is intended to reduce bystander's hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death of those they aid. "
This law's corollary is that bystanders who choose NOT to aid others who are injured or ill are also immune from prosecution.
The interpretation of this law vary by state, but with few exceptions, anyone rendering aid in good faith to another is immune from lawsuits in the U.S.
Back to the runaway train question -- maybe the question is not who you should save on the tracks, but those on the train. The train hitting three people would be more likely to derail, causing an accident that could kill many more lives. If you're just playing a numbers game, let the train hit the lone moron on the second track.
The interpretation of this law vary by state, but with few exceptions, anyone rendering aid in good faith to another is immune from lawsuits in the U.S.
All I know is that my daughter's ambulance boss though encouraged his staff to help in event of an accident anywhere
in Canada must have had good reason for warning his staff about rendering aid in the US.. maybe your quote above in red
may answer this question .
Caliber
H4O Interesting scenario -
I would prolly pull the lever to save three people
here is one to contrast it with
there are 4 people standing on a train track. You are on a footbridge and a train is approaching. There is a large gentleman standing next to you. THe only way to stop the train is to throw the large gentleman off the bridge in the path of the train. (you realize that you are too light to stop the train by thowing yourself in front of it).
What would you do and how is this different to H4O's scenario.
The train hitting three people would be more likely to derail, causing an accident that could kill many more lives. If you're just playing a numbers game, let the train hit the lone moron on the second track.
Three people on the track would have about as much Resistance to a speeding train as wet confetti.. in my opinion LOL
Caliber
THe only way to stop the train is to throw the large gentleman off the bridge in the path of the train. (you realize that you are too light to stop the train by thowing yourself in front of it).
This scenario is even easier because this is call murder ! Try explaining such actions to a judge ! ....
Cal
caliber: "Three people on the track would have about as much Resistance to a speeding train as wet confetti.. in my opinion
Yes, I thought of that, too, but since the chance of derailment is just slightly higher with three people than one, I'd let the train hit them. If the tracks were in poor condition (as many are in the U.S.), that could be a factor too.
I once rode the Auto Train from Forida to Virginia. It was like being in a blender, getting thrown against doors and spilling your coffee from the terrible condition of the tracks. It felt like a toothpick left on the track would be enough to derail it.
caliber:
The interpretation of this law vary by state, but with few exceptions, anyone rendering aid in good faith to another is immune from lawsuits in the U.S.
"All I know is that my daughter's ambulance boss though encouraged his staff to help in event of an accident anywhere in Canada must have had good reason for warning his staff about rendering aid in the US.. maybe your quote above in red may answer this question."
You could be right. There's a case pending in California. A woman pulled another woman from a wrecked car, which made the victim a paraplegic. The prosecutors are arguing that there was no good medical reason for pulling the woman out of the car -- the car wasn't on fire; it was not in the way of traffic. Many people are worried that if the victim wins the case, people everywhere in the U.S. will be hesitant to render first aid to accident victims -- not a good thing.
caliber
THe only way to stop the train is to throw the large gentleman off the bridge in the path of the train. (you realize that you are too light to stop the train by thowing yourself in front of it). This scenario is even easier because this is call murder ! Try explaining such actions to a judge ! .... Cal |
okay for argument/discussion sake and to extend the thought experiment - an atheist may question why Jesus' sacrificial death is seen as an act of love/justice on Gods part and not as murder.
(I'm not trying to start a theist/atheist argument here. It is just that thought experiments like the ones above have occupied thinkers for thousands of years. Plus something Leo said on another thread (the revelation book thread - about the political implications of the book of revelation) got me thinking along these lines. (so take it out on her her if anyone wants to start a fight and lets move on with a discussion/argument)
To clarify, it may be that the idea of Jesus' sacrificial death to save mankind represents human ability to reason.
