A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
As a consequentialist this is unironically how I think.
If you save a person, you're responsible for what they do, the same way that you would feel the guilt and consequences of if you killed a person.
That said, if you don't know a person, you have to treat them as you would want to be treated. Save the ones you can.
I disagree. If I killed someone and they turned out to be a Nazi, then I didn't do something good. I did something bad and got lucky. If you save someone's life and they do something bad, then you did a good thing and got unlucky. It obviously changes a bit when you know more about the person.
Yes that's covered by my concise 4 sentence statement. If you're having trouble finding it, it was on page 1 sentence 3 "That said, if you don't know a person, you have to treat them as you would want to be treated."
Yeah, I saw that part. Which I would say conflicts a bit with the second sentence. By the logic you outlined, it seems almost a moral burden to save someone's life. If one simply didn't save someone else, then they're not responsible for the deeds of someone else, which seems preferable. What about the opposite? If I saved the person that found the cure for cancer, would I get credit for it? What if a person was decent when I saved them but then did some fucked up shit later? Respectfully, I find your logic a bit questionable.
Let's apply the rules to the example you gave.
Do you know the person? No. You should treat them as you want to be treated. Easy. You can always claim ignorance of any wrongdoing they did later outside of your control.
If you knew the person was a nazi, or had a proclivity to armed robber or possibly murder: then you should not save that person unless you have full confidence that they have changed. Also easy.
If you know a good person who can cure cancer then you should save them, but you should never expect any compensation for anything you've ever done unless you have a written legal agreement with the other people involved. Easy.
Responsibility does not equal compensation. You are responsible for the people you save. Sometimes that involved being sued over a DNR bracelet, sometimes that means being responsible for making sure the person is properly detained and tried for ongoing criminal activity. At the very least you should feel extremely guilt for, say, helping somebody that you knew you should not have helped and vice versa. I don't think that's a stretch or preaching, I think most people think this way and even further some people believe limited information doesn't factor in.
There is no conflict with the rules of this personal philosophy. If you had any problem with the rules then it should be, in my opinion, that it's acting as judge jury and executioner in the only case of knowing a person is bad (in your subjective opinion) and choosing not to save them.
The show Monster covers this moral dilemma (and it is a dilemma).
In the show, a brain surgeon breaks orders to change who they are about to operate on to save the life of an unknown child who has been shot. They save the child and the one they were meant to operate on dies.
The child turns out to be a once in a generation psychopath raised as a psychological experiment by neo Nazis in Germany/ the former Soviet Union.
The protagonist understands what your response does not. That they are responsible for the damage the life they saved us now causing, and the show moves forward with them working to address this.
So agree or disagree, I highly recommend the show to explore the idea further. It's a shocking well written and well animated psycho thriller.
How does my response not understand that premise? It's completely inline with what I said with the exception of breaking orders and not treating unknown lives as equal (he ignored the man to save the child, did not treat the man as he would want to be treated). Kind of weird to just throw a random insult at the end of a show recommendation.
Your lack of intellectual curiosity doesn't make your assumptions valid.
What about Bob?