If I see a person about to punch someone, am I morally obligated to attempt to stop the attack within reason?

Question

If so, does this not mean I'm morally obligated to make the choice for the attacker, by forcing him to cease his attack?

So, how is it that 'pro-choicers' claim they have no right to make a choice for another?

Morality demands it. Often.

Let's hear the excuses, pro-choicers... I want to see how much moral cowardice I can stomach before I hurl.

I am morally obligated to defend another human being, within reason and capability.

Really Chippy, I would have expected better from you of all people here.

SPR:

Hence, "Within reason"

If the attacker is wielding dual katana, and with skill to boot, and you don't have any sort of shield or weapon to counter with, making the attempt would be beyond reason.

But even just a "Hey, watch out, dude's got a sword," could help the victim.

Pangel:

The foetus is genetically distinct. Left alone, it has its own human potential entirely. It is not a part of the woman's body. It is not an 'undifferentiated tissue mass' (tissue, by scientific definition, has a single biological function, and is organized into organs).

If I swallow a golf ball, it is inside me, but it still isn't part of me.

Quiet.Buck:

Good point, but law and ethic are often worlds apart.

Gorgeous:

We've already long ago established how I view your actions in that regard.

My views of them, and my views of you otherwise as a total person, have not changed.

Nor does knowing the scope of the violence you suffered. You ended a human life. At least yours was spared.

Pangel:

The child three months out of its mother's womb must depend entirely on its parent to feed it.

By that logic, it is not murder to kill it.

Chippy:

Yes. I would be. Even as a victim of crime, you have no right to seek revenge -- only justice.

I would assist you in using reasonable force to restrain the person until the authorities could arrive.

I would assist the criminal in preventing you from using unreasonable force or violence against him.

Gazza:

Notice the use of the word 'attack'.

Yoda:

I am at the park. I see a man trying to push a screaming boy into the back seat of a car. The boy is screaming, "NO! You're not my father!"

Now, in my early years, I often used this gambit. So there is a good chance the man is the boy's father.

So, by your logic, I should not interfere with this man's free will.

I know a few parents of kids who were kidnapped and murdered, who screamed exactly those words, who might want to have a word with you about free will and the loss of their child.

Answer 1

I believe if one believes they are a moral person they do have the responsibility to intervene if they can accomplish it safely.
*The law in the United States would expect it's citizens to intervene by blowing their car horn to distract the attacker and to make a phone call to the police.

*If we see a woman being gang raped do we just turn our heads and go about our business?

*If one sees a child being pulled into a van, are we to ignore that action?

A moral person is not an island and in order for evil to exist is for good people to do nothing.

Answer 2

Wait, I think you edited this question a few times.....

Morally? I think that if you make this a question of morality, you would have to have one blanket answer, across the board.

For instance, you would have to say either "yes you are morally obligated to attempt to stop the attack - in every case" or "No. No matter what the case, you should not make the attempt."

As long as it's a moral question, I think it has to be absolute.

I personally wouldn't see it as a question of morals. There are some cases when I would get involved and some where I wouldn't. Also, depending on the circumstances, I would use different methods of intervention.

Example: Two guys about to punch the s^!T out of each other in the street? I don't get involved.

Someone punching an old lady, or a dog? Well then, if I can take them out, I'll do it myself. If I can't, I'm going to seek assistance.

I guess my answer is NO. You're not obligated.

Answer 3

since you've already defined contrary opinions as "excuses" and "moral cowardice," it is clear you have no interest in a respectful debate or discussion. It must be nice to have all the answers. I did, too, when I was 18.

First, one is not morally obligated to stop someone from hitting someone else. It's a good idea in many cases, but not always - sometimes you may actually make the situation worse. The rest of us use judgment; perhaps you may mature to that point someday yourself.

Second, your argument has predetermined that a fetus or a collection of tissues not yet a fetus is a person to be defended. That is not a consensus, period.

In 30 years of propaganda and ranting, the anti-choice camp has yet to prove its case. Soyour "logic" continues to fail.

Next, neither you nor I have the right to impose our interpretations on a woman who is going through enough difficulty of her own. THAT, my friend, is truly immoral.

Now go ahead and hurl; that may be the most worthwhile contribution to the discussion you are capable of.

Answer 4

Nope.

One should not judge others, its not your job. In that situation if you don't know whats going on, don't get involved. One should not interfere with free will, especially if you don't understand the reasons for the situation.

If a guy meets a girl at the bar and they are sitting and talking when suddenly the husband turns up with a gun concealed in his pocket. The innocent guy doesn't even know she had a hubby, but the husband doesn't care about that and treatens to shoot him. After that you walk through the door. At that moment the husband is distracted and looks over his shoulder. The innocent guy ceases his chance to disarm the husband, and attempts to strike him down.
2 outcomes could occur which would then be your fault:
1) Your dumb *** stops him and you end up getting shot in the tussle. Serves you right for not minding your own business.
2) The husband feels threatened and shoots killing his wife or the innocent guy she was chatting up..

I think its silly to go around with a set of moral rules. Its better to have your principles but respond flexibly to any given situation.

Answer 5

Regardless of our differences on God and salvation, Hun, I truly appreciate your stand as a pro-lifer. People CAN and do reason away the precious lives of unborn children and their guilt in participating in these premeditated murders, but I just wonder WHY, if it's REALLY just a blob of tissue and not a living soul, why so many women that have had abortions are haunted by guilt?.....Guilt is our conscience's way of telling us we have done something WRONG.

But there is still forgiveness for those who have had an abortion or participated in some capacity (perhaps assisted as a doctor or nurse). Jesus loves you and is willing to forgive you if you trust in Him and repent of your sins!

God Bless you all!

Answer 6

interesting analogy, protecting the victim sometimes requires removing the "choice" of the "attacker"

I would say yes, you are morally obligated to attempt to stop it within reason(not act like spiderman, but a "hey, leave that guy alone")

the Good Samaritan Laws would agree with me.


edit- disgustin' justin, playing word games doesn't get you anywhere. If I said "pro-choice is anti-life" that doesn't make what i say more valid.

lost.eu/21618

Answer 7

Until they "define" when life truley begins, the choice will always exist. I see both sides. I don't LIKE both sides but I see it. I am pro-choice because it's the law.
If we want less abortions, then we need to pump more money into places like Planned Parenthood instead of hoping the problem goes away. EDUCATION can do wonderful things. It's called a trickle down effect. Unfortunatly, most Christian factions want it both ways. They think we should all believe in THIER beliefs of no pre-marital sex.
I am a firm believer of you play you pay. If you aren't willing to accept the possible outcomes, then don't do it. *shrug* I am aware that this doesn't cover all things, but it does cover the majority.

Answer 8

huh?

u arent morally obligated to stop it. you dont make choices for people in general.

whats ur point?

if you dont let someone choose for themselves. your not letting them live their own life. how is that any better?

edit: your not morally obligated to stop anyone from punching someone else. you can do it out of kindness towards that person your protecting. but it has nothing to do with morality.

what if the victim is an offender of another crime against the person who is attacking him? if you stole my wallet, id kick your *** no questions asked. would u still be morally obligated to protect the theif? or do you make exceptions to this?

Answer 9

The person having the abortion is making a personal choice - it's her body and her embryo, which, despite the nonsense propaganda that anti-choicers bombard us with, is not a person or even a life.

The person committing the attack is making a choice that involves their victim and anyone else who happens to be around.

I have broken up street fights myself. I am no moral coward. Get real.

Answer 10

By law, if you see a crime happening and do not intervene or call the authorities. Then you are now an accomplice to that said crime.