---

Answers: Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy?
If so, should he have a legal obligation
["Good Samaritan" laws] as well?

---

This is actually a famous question in one of its forms. The answer is that letting die and killing are essentially the same thing, for if you kill you allow one to die by providing the means. If the means is already provided and you don't step in then you are allowing to die. Rather like allowing a severely disabled person to die because you didn't step in and re-attach his breathing apparatus. The kid in the water cannot swim, thus he is essentially disabled. (i.e.; not able).
So morally--well that depends on your culture--in ours and pretty much any I have heard of it would be unethical--but morals are something different. So really your question should be does he have an ethical obligation rather than does he have a moral obligation. Yes, he does. Remember not acting is an action. unless he stopped and never moved his body again he did act--he did not simply chose not to act--he chose one action over another. to keep walking rather than to jump in the water. There is no such thing as doing nothing--really-think about it.

---

he should have jumped in. I had to laugh though because that is my ex' husbands name!

---

Smith must have misplaced his heart in his bank locker by chance that day!

---

yes there is always a moral obligation to save a life. i've saved a drowning person's life before and i'm not a particularly strong swimmer but i wouldnt stand asside like everyone else! the little girl was about six years old and how could you live with yourself knowing that you might have saved her if you had tried??? it didnt even register that i might endanger myself, i just dived in and got her!!
you cant make it law though, it would never stick and you could never prove that said person would have made a difference.

---

Lets get real here. People everywhere around the world know of people that commit really bad crimes and yet they still keep quiet and don't want to become involved.

The above is the same.
Everyone has a moral obligation to step forward in life to help someone else no matter what the circumstances if humanly possible and if its not beyond their capabilities.
If they cant help they should at least attempt to get help.

If something were to happen to them they would hope someone would do the same for them.

---

there is no time to think all this moral/legal obligations.he should jump now

---

In what sense is this a dilemma? OF COURSE he has a moral obligation to render any aid he can. In some jurisdictions, he would also have a legal obligation, but to me, that's quite irrelevant.

---

He does have a legal obligation there is no should. Also to avoid getting wet throw a plank in the water or just run for help that should blanket his legal responsibility. As for his moral imperative, he just sounds lazy to me ( and morally at fault)

---

Moral obligation without a doubt.
The legal obligation is a very good question; particularly with the recent UK case with (I believe) "untrained" Police support officers unable to save a boy - perhaps this is the cue for your question. Perhaps if we had a closer knit society then the moral obligation would be enough as people would be castigated for not helping others. The red tape involved in upholding such issues would be vast - how could you prove there wasn't a reason for failing to assist? So, good question, my answer is we need to all become more caring and yet less tolerant of those who feel they are outside of the existing legal system then hopefully we would all be able to be Good Samaritans.

---

Because of the definition of “moral” one can make an argument either way. As far as the legal obligation I don’t know since I am not a lawyer. But I do believe that the person is rationalizing about catching a cold and getting his clothes wet. People rationalize to delude themselves. I’d say there is more going on psychologically than is obvious.

mor·al [máwr?l]
adj
1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave
2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what the law says should be done
3. in terms of natural justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
a moral victory.

4. encouraging goodness and respectability: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably
5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large
6. telling right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge
7. based on conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof


n (plural mor·als)

Encarta ? World English Dictionary ? & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

---

There is no way he should think at all. His moral/legal obligations is to save life. He should have jumped in.

---

either way, morally or legally, yes, he should rot for choosing not to help

---

---