Conclusion:
Coming to
the aid of other’s or the lack thereof can raise many questions of one's
moral or binding obligations to assist in any situation. It doesn’t matter if you’re feeding the
homeless or watching a crime take place. Your obligation to either will be
judged based on your acts or omissions. This can also show the role played of a good or bad samaritan.
Premises:
1. Acts and
omissions in its simplest terms, holds that a person is more blameworthy for
acts than omissions even if the consequences are the same. (AOD page 476)
A. In a case of a person seeing a crime taken
place or seeing a person in distress and choose not to do anything are held equally
responsible for the same act.
B. The omission is considered to be unmoral or
the bystander effect where assistance is not offered in any effort to deflect
harm or death.
C. The merits of any human being can be weigh by the good or evil charateritic displayed in ones actions.
2. It may be
good legal policy to limit liability for omissions to cases where there is a
pre-existing duty of care. (AOD Causations page 480)
A. the duty of care is only defined by your
personal relationship, when violated it can cause a question of morality
B. The
legal obligation of protection between a parent and a child, or patient and the
physician is expected. Although legally binding only due to the relationship. The
neglect or omission to not protect that person is a punishable by fines or imprisonment.
C.
The lack of protection between two strangers is neither a legal obligation nor
a personal responsibility.
3. The first
is that justice and benevolence (or the respect and concern, as they are
sometimes represented) overlap at their lower edges. (The PND: Continuing
Debate page 482)
A.
The respect for law and the obligation to do what’s right is so different from
each other it will never meet in the middle.
B. Positive
and negatives duties hold different value.
It’s hard to maintain positive duties as it takes time and effort. Negative
duties hold no requirements.
Shalise Coursey’s Argument Outline highlighted many excellent premises from the reading “Bad Samaritans, Acts and Omissions, however, in my opinion the premise of “Negative duties are based on the value of justice and respect for human dignity, autonomy, freedom and human rights. Positive duties are based on the value of charity or benevolence (as opposed to justice)” (The PND: Continuing Debate) should have also been included. I feel that it would have added more clarification when she spoke about justice and benevolence overlapping at their lower edges. While she briefly touched on how positive and negative duties hold different values, it could have been elaborated on more to further differentiate the two.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic of discussion that can be endless and have many different takes on the subject. I agree with Smith when she says that there is no moral difference between acts and omission if the consequences are the same. (AOD pg 476) It is true that when we fail to react to an act that goes against normal behavior we are just as guilty as the person committing the act. The act of omission is in fact a negative act. The law recognizes omission as causing harm in which I agree totally. Omission is almost like being an accessory to the act.
ReplyDeleteAlthough well thought and written, this outline is missing some important things. I would suggest explaining what the difference between “omission” and “acting” is in terms of Smith’s definition. Although one would assume that omission simply means not doing and acting means doing, Smith argues that omission has a deeper definition. Rather than simply not doing, omission is “a gap in a pattern of activity on the part of an agent that violates a standard of normal behavior” (476). I believe this is something very important to mention in this outline. Without that definition, one would run into some confusion.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the first premise, statement “A” claims that a person seeing a crime or seeing a person in distress and not choosing to do anything are held responsible for the same act, I was left slightly confused. Does it mean that acting and omission are equally held responsible? If so, Smith questions that. She draws her logic from an example about a person who walked away from a horrific crime. The person was not held responsible because “he felt [he had] no moral obligation [or] legal one” (476). I would have mentioned this idea in one of the premises and discussed how this related to the notion of a good vs. bad Samaritan.
The conclusion consists of the idea of one’s morals and obligations, yet the premises revolve around the legality aspect of it. When looking at the conclusion, I would suggest drawing more of the “moral” aspect of Smith’s article, rather than different obligations and legal view points.
Your outline on the “Bad Samaritan Acts and Omissions were good. I do agree with Steven about the last premises. I feel like premises 3B on positive and negative duties could have been explain the distinction between acting and refraining from acting. Negative duties are like rules that forbid us from doing something morally bad. This duty is an assumption of justice that primarily requires that we refrain from harming and injuring other. Positive duties are almost like obligation. They are duties to alleviate suffering and to tell the truth. Their views require that we act on and render assistance to those in distress.
ReplyDeleteTo act for the sake of acting is always a good thing, although one should not ALWAYS be held accountable if they cannot do something to assist or simply dont want to. There's always that MORAL obligation yet some today simply dont have any. Sad but true! In response to the above, it was thoughtfully put together yet I do agree with the lot of you. More could have been explaned but I did make sense of it all and is that not the point?? Until a law is passed, one wont be held accountable for actions or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteShalise Coursey’s Argument Outline included many valuable premises from the article “Bad Samaritans, Acts and Omissions. The line "if a person sees a crime taken place or sees a person in distress and chooses not to do anything,they should be equally held responsible for the same act" raises many opinions in my book. Many people would rather not risk themselves by playing the hero even though their actions may leave the other person in danger. I don't agree that they should neccessarily be convicted of the same crime, but they should however be accounted for something if they stand by and dont do anything. Even if you arent able to physically help someone in danger, if you able to get away from the situation, the common decency thing would be to at least call 911 and hope that your action would contribute somewhat. I agree with the other classmates on possibly adding more about negative and positive duties, although it was quite understandable and to the point.
ReplyDeletePositive and negative distinctions, acts and omissions distinctions and what they mean and whether they are justifiable really got me reflecting on the core of the argument. More specific a mother (Listless Lily) watching her child drown in the duck pond along with another person. Because the duty to rescue exists only when the rescue is “safe” or “easy”, and because its reality depends on some very vague concept of type of relationship and dependence on another person, the scope of the duty is arguably so vague. More so when raise the riskiness of the rescue, causation by the other person and level of relationships directly.
ReplyDeleteUsing this model to shed light on the desirability of a duty to rescue and the expected helpfulness of another citizen taking into account that I may be a victim or even a potential rescuer; do I desire assistance (absolutely) or should I mind my own business taking into account the victim may not be an actual victim (better safe than sorry, dial 911). A bystander maybe reluctant to call for help feeling it may invade on the privacy of a potential victim including the potential perpetrator because the bystander is unable to determine if the incident is an emergency and/or safe.
Sorry I procrastinated but I am glad that I did. I was reading an article about a nurse in California today who did not perform CPR on a patient even though the 911 operator begged her. As far as acts of omission being less frowned upon, judging by the comments on the CNN website's article, this woman was being judged by her act of omission. I found it fitting that this topic came up on CNN.
ReplyDeleteLink to the video of the story - http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/04/dispatcher-pleaded-with-nurse-to-do-cpr/
I'm not sure I understood Smith's label of "good Samaritan" it seems redundant because the very definition of a Samaritan is that they are of good nature and generous for that matter how can one be labeled a bad Samaritan no matter if they helped out of duty or obligation or if they omitted to help at all. I don’t think it was covered but the fact that being a “good Samaritan” is it considered being an action of emotions or an action of duty or both? What of the times when the expected people don’t help and those considered enemy show compassion or are friends and foe judge the same in this instance?
ReplyDeleteIts good to help people when they are in need of help or distress but sometimes you may overstep your bounderies not knowing what kind of will that person has written. Like Tom, I heard about the nurse who refused to do CPR on a dying womn at a retirement home and this story is a primary example of "Bad Samaritans, Acts, and Omissions". Before the facts of the case came out, people were ready to persicute this nurse for not helping this woman but in the end the director of the retirement home agreed with the nurse, saying she was right. They are not obligated to perform CPR on anyone at the home and they don't have the same ethical obligation as doctors and nurses who work in the hospitals. And finally the family confirmed that the woman didn't want to be resusitated and that was why she chose to live where she lived. So before you assist someone that needs your help do you ask them about their living will or do you help them regardless??
ReplyDeleteActs of of omission are basically regulated by a person's sense of conscience. By this I mean, whether or not a person knowing that their nonaction may have allowed (possible) preventable harm, can look them selves in the mirror and not be racked with guilt. I added possible here because there is no guarentee of the outcome, i.e. even if the nurse in the news had performed CPR, there's no guarantee the woman would have survived. I truly believe in Shalise's point in IC. Whether we come to the aid of another person does define who we are as individuals. Our ability to have compassion for another human being, whether they are known to us or not, is what separates us from animals. While I don't think the laws of omission should come with the same level of penalty that laws covering the actual acts do, I do think there should be laws governing accountability. But I have a personal bias because my cousin, Ashley Ellis, was 23 when she died in a Vermont State prison, 2 days after beginning a 30 sentance for causing a moter vehicle accident that severely injured a man. Ashley's death was the result of a heart attack from not being given the potassium chloride pills needed for her anorexic condition. Her death was easily preventable. In her case no one was charged with any wrong doing. I think any of us would hope someone would come to our resue or that of a loved one.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the nurse in the news, this is a good example of why these cases get tough to sort out. In a nursing home, many people do have DNR's, as was the case here. But... I look at the situation this way: If the nurse knew she was not going to assist the woman, then why call 911? Why not let the woman just die of natural cause in a quiet manner? However, in calling 911, she was choosing to take action and in so doing, had a moral (if not legal) obligation to follow through with this action and provide CPR. To call 911 and then stand by to me seems the worst possible decision and seems to display a callousness.