DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
If someone is drowning and you refuse to help, are you responsible for their death?
Debate Information
I'd like approach this debate from morale perspective instead of the legal perspective. If you see that someone is drowning and you are in a full position to help them, but decide for whatever reason not to do that, does that make you responsible for their death?
Morally, wouldn't "without risking your own life" be based on your own perceived swimming skills and the specific situation? IOW; is it possible to save a drowning person without risking your own life? Skipping the instances of people who don't know how to swim or don't believe they have the skills to successfully save the drowning person in the waters that they are in, there is a fairly pervasive perception that a drowning person will grab whatever or whoever they can and take them down with them.
CYDdharta "Morally, wouldn't "without risking your own life" be based on your own perceived swimming skills and the specific situation? IOW; is it possible to save a drowning person without risking your own life? Skipping the instances of people who don't know how to swim or don't believe they have the skills to successfully save the drowning person in the waters that they are in, there is a fairly pervasive perception that a drowning person will grab whatever or whoever they can and take them down with them. " It is implied that you have some other way of saving the person biseds swimming as trying to save them by swimming no matter who you are is risking your life and he said not risking your life. I am assuming that you are not risking someone life to save the drawing person ether like it is not a killer with a gun who was trying to kill your friends right agsr? I am also assuming they know how to help. If the person panics and cannot diced what to do to help which is a response some humans may have then morally I don't think they are responsible.
No you’re not , you have no duty real or imagined to save the person , people die every day we could save and we choose not to because mostly we couldn’t be bothered
The only situation I can perceive, whereby it would be possible to save a drowning person without risking ones' own life.
Would be if the water was not deep enough to be fully submerged.
Therefore, if the victim was fully conscious and not disabled in any way, they would not need rescuing.
I think to pursue this question further, you will have to create a much more specific scenario.
If someone was drowning in deep water, it would be foolish to attempt to rescue them, if one did not have the confidence and ability to do so.
You could phone rescue services, shout for help or throw them one of those inflatable rings.
My belief is you have a moral obligation to help others if you aren't significantly putting yourself at risk. To do otherwise is to have a callous disregard for life.
These are all great perspectives. What inspired me to post this debate, is a story of a woman I saw on the news during the bridge collapse in Florida. She saw a child ina crushed car and couldn't get to him to save him. In that case there was literally nothing she could do, but what if situation was different like in a case of drowning. It would be pretty traumatic to know you let someone die on your watch while there was an opportunity to save that person. the @CYDdharta snopes article is an interesting story. I also agree that there shouldn't be a legal obligation, but I would say that most people would struggle ethically to know they didnt do anything. Each person would have to determine risk to their own love in saving someone (i guess there is always a risk).
The only situation I can perceive, whereby it would be possible to save a drowning person without risking ones' own life.
Would be if the water was not deep enough to be fully submerged.
Therefore, if the victim was fully conscious and not disabled in any way, they would not need rescuing.
I think to pursue this question further, you will have to create a much more specific scenario.
If someone was drowning in deep water, it would be foolish to attempt to rescue them, if one did not have the confidence and ability to do so.
You could phone rescue services, shout for help or throw them one of those inflatable rings.
My belief is you have a moral obligation to help others if you aren't significantly putting yourself at risk. To do otherwise is to have a callous disregard for life.
“ My belief is you have a moral obligation to help others if you aren't significantly putting yourself at risk. To do otherwise is to have a callous disregard for life.”
But you’re only saying this aren’t you as it’s the “ right “ thing to say or do you firmly believe this ?
I personally do not like the concept of "moral responsibility" in this situation. If I helped a drowning person, I would like to believe that I did so because I wanted to, not because some abstract system of beliefs compelled me to. So my answer is, no, you are not responsible for their death.
I think morals should provide a shortcut for decision-making, rather than a limitation to it. Morals should be a tool, not the Big Brother telling you how to act.
No. The person responsible is the person who put them in that situation. At most, you are only responsible for the lack of their savior. You didn't make the choice that risked their life, you made the choice that didn't save them after they were already put in risk. Cause and effect is important here. You didn't cause them to be at risk in the first place. Only the cause is responsible.
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
What do you define as in a position to help them?
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.12  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 8%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2017/07/21/cocoa-florida-drowning-controversy/
Morally, wouldn't "without risking your own life" be based on your own perceived swimming skills and the specific situation? IOW; is it possible to save a drowning person without risking your own life? Skipping the instances of people who don't know how to swim or don't believe they have the skills to successfully save the drowning person in the waters that they are in, there is a fairly pervasive perception that a drowning person will grab whatever or whoever they can and take them down with them.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-a-drowning-person-will-drag-you-down-too
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Morally, wouldn't "without risking your own life" be based on your own perceived swimming skills and the specific situation? IOW; is it possible to save a drowning person without risking your own life? Skipping the instances of people who don't know how to swim or don't believe they have the skills to successfully save the drowning person in the waters that they are in, there is a fairly pervasive perception that a drowning person will grab whatever or whoever they can and take them down with them. "
It is implied that you have some other way of saving the person biseds swimming as trying to save them by swimming no matter who you are is risking your life and he said not risking your life. I am assuming that you are not risking someone life to save the drawing person ether like it is not a killer with a gun who was trying to kill your friends right agsr? I am also assuming they know how to help.
If the person panics and cannot diced what to do to help which is a response some humans may have then morally I don't think they are responsible.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.84  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
The only situation I can perceive, whereby it would be possible to save a drowning person without risking ones' own life.
Would be if the water was not deep enough to be fully submerged.
Therefore, if the victim was fully conscious and not disabled in any way, they would not need rescuing.
I think to pursue this question further, you will have to create a much more specific scenario.
If someone was drowning in deep water, it would be foolish to attempt to rescue them, if one did not have the confidence and ability to do so.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
My belief is you have a moral obligation to help others if you aren't significantly putting yourself at risk. To do otherwise is to have a callous disregard for life.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
the @CYDdharta snopes article is an interesting story. I also agree that there shouldn't be a legal obligation, but I would say that most people would struggle ethically to know they didnt do anything. Each person would have to determine risk to their own love in saving someone (i guess there is always a risk).
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
“ My belief is you have a moral obligation to help others if you aren't significantly putting yourself at risk. To do otherwise is to have a callous disregard for life.”
But you’re only saying this aren’t you as it’s the “ right “ thing to say or do you firmly believe this ?
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think morals should provide a shortcut for decision-making, rather than a limitation to it. Morals should be a tool, not the Big Brother telling you how to act.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra