I think you might be short-selling what Bill meant. I think that we have primary, secondary, and tertiary responsibilities. I think that our responsibilities extend outward like circles from a rock dropped in a pond. With each outer circle, the responsibility is diminished, otherwise we would all be responsible for one another all the time.....and that's just plain false teaching. I am certain that Bill would agree that his responsibility to protect others is probably as strong for his immediate family as it is for himself. It is probably more imperative to protect his wife or child than it is to protect his 2nd cousin; and it is probably more imperative to protect his 2nd cousin than it is to protect a total stranger..........and so on and so one, radiating outward. Neighbors fit in there according to our individual relationships with our neighbors. Not everyone whom I consider family is related to me by blood or marriage.fishfree wrote:Precisely. The original post made a broad sweeping blanket statement that we should not get involved. I pointed out an instance where that would, and I think should, be difficult (to not come to the aid of a child being murdered). I was raised that we have responsibilities beyond looking out for number 1.03Lightningrocks wrote:I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations. ...
Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.
I believe there is a logical argument to be made for looking out for one another and I am not advocating playing policeman or intervening for the sake of intervening. The example I gave was very specific. Beyond logic, stepping in at our own peril, financial or physical, is an intrinsic part of our humanity, or certainly should be.
An honest debate however ends with disrespect and name calling. I am no-ones 'Sonny', I have been in harms way before, although not in the way that Mr. Clayton was. And if I am on a high horse I invite others to join me. The air is better up here than in the mire of 'every man (and child) for himself' with only jungle law.
Once you get beyond your primary and possibly secondary responsibilities, one begins to enter the region of self-sacrifice for unknown objectives, and it is not for you or me to judge whether another responder did or didn't do the right thing for a total stranger. I'm not saying one shouldn't do it—that's a decision that only the individual can make—but there are far more complex calculations involved even if they are instinctive and instant than there are for the protection of self and immediate family. Further, it is probably unreasonable to expect one stranger to sacrifice his own life for another total stranger.......unless that is the first stranger's job for which he is trained......such as with a cop or fireman. That is why the old guy who intervened on behalf of the baby is a hero. He placed himself in harm's way for a stranger. But we must resist the temptation to A) expect everyone to be a hero; and B) to think less of someone who decides that he will not be a hero today. We don't dishonor the service of our veterans simply because they were not awarded some kind of medal for bravery. That person whom you indict for lack of heroism my in fact be a hero every day in other ways of which you or I may not be aware.
