SEG wrote: ↑
Fri May 03, 2019 7:24 am
Og3 wrote: ↑
Fri May 03, 2019 4:23 am
To make this easy for you, SEG:
1. That we have a natural desire to save a drowning person for whatever reason, altruism, survival, whatever;
All of us?
If someone does not, we say that he has a mental defect and a depraved indifference, don't we? So for all neurological typical persons, it is true.
2. That we have a natural and conflicting desire to remain safe, for whatever reason; and
All of us?
If someone does not, we say that he has a mental defect, don't we? So for all neurological typical persons, it is true.
3. That there is a third impulse that tells us which of the other two is the right thing to do.
and again, all of us?
All of us who are neurological typical.
And it may be either one: If we jump in to save the one, we may fail in our duty to save hundreds; Or if we stay safe we may fail in our duty to the one. But at the time, in that moment, there is something within us that tells us what is right and what is wrong.
Sorry, stuff like this isn't universal, so he fails on this one too.
You yourself, as a fireman, have no doubt seen such a scenario:
Um, I haven't been called that or have called myself that for many years. The correct term is "firefighter" if you want to stay politically and ethically correct.
I roll my eyes: The point remains.
1. That there is a natural impulse to do something daring but dangerous to save someone;
2. That there is a natural impulse to protect yourself;
3. That in the moment, one or the other may be the right thing to do, and something within you tells you which that is.
So do you disagree with 1, 2, 3? And on what logical grounds, in light of what YOU, as a fireman, know to be true?
My years of training and experience would tell me the right thing to do. Nothing more and nothing less. I fail to see how any third party deity (if it existed) that hasn't had any training or experience would be relevant.
Ah. So you're saying that you never felt a desire to save someone even though it would violate current doctrine and protocol; that you never felt the desire to remain safe despite current doctrine and protocol; and that you never had to decide between those impulses as to the correct action at that moment?
I'll give you an example that we trained on in the navy: You open a scuttle and see an unconscious shipmate a deck below. Do you go down the ladder to save him?
Answer: HELL NO. Otherwise the next person will see two unconscious or dead shipmates.
You instead: 1.) Report, 2.) If you can do so safely, don an OBA and enter the space to check on the shipmate and/or remove him to safety. The most likely scenario is that he unwisely entered an un-ventilated space that was not gas-freed, lost consciousness, and fell to the lower deck. If you try to save him WITHOUT an OBA, you will only compound the issue. If you fail to report FIRST, no one will know you're down there.
So: We see the natural impulse 1 -- my shipmate is hurt. Screw protocol, I'm gonna save him -- and natural impulse 2 -- Death is afoot. He's probably already dead. I should just back away and not get involved -- And we see natural impulse three, the deciding impulse, which tells you to FOLLOW the PROTOCOL, and REPORT, then return with proper gear to save the shipmate.
So in that scenario, do you deny the existence of 1, 2, or 3?