people MORALLY obligated to help a person being brutally beaten up??

Question:what if it meant puting your life in danger to help that person?? Are you still morally obligated to help this person?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: what if it meant puting your life in danger to help that person?? Are you still morally obligated to help this person?

Under most circumstances, I don't think we are morally obligated to put our lives in danger to help strangers. It is noble to do so, of course, and often possible to help without much personal risk.

There are some situations where there's a natural or formal committment to defend. A father or mother that did not defend their young child would be morally lacking, and a police officer that did not defend a victim would be derelict in duty under most circumstances.

You are certainly morally obligated to call the police!

I'd want to help, but I'd be too shocked to help at the time.

It's easier said then done.

it depends on what school of morals you believe in

Above all else, your conscience will decide if you should help.
How far you COULD should held within your means. How far you WOULD go to help out is entirely up to the individual.

Maybe, it depends on the situation, depends on what he did to deserve it. If the person did nothing to deserve it, then yes, I think we are obligated to help a person.
Wouldn't you like help if you were being unfairly beaten?

i would say ... Yes.

UR 2 other Q's,relate, i think, ONLY to a split-second life-or-death situation(i could be wrong here though!).
In which case( = if that IS the case),then we can and i think should,"put off" these surplus and "noisey" other questions,until we (or even i)can better make split-second and life-or-death decisions(e.g quicker ones or qualitatively better ones).

Yes, you are. To stand by and do nothing would be wrong.

Are we morraly abligated to help someone being beaten up??? Well maybe we are and maybe we aren't, but in my opinion I would have to say no. This world is all about survival of the fittest. If one person isnt able to defend themselves from an attacker then, in my opinion, it is there fault and their own problem. If we are abligated to help then that person will always depend on others for survival or protection and will never learn how to defend themselves.

Obligated: no. But if you don't it will probably forever haunt you...There's always that gnawing question "What if?" you know?....You can be the hero, but sometimes the hero ends up dead. Either way, it's your choice.

I saw the Truro killer in Adelaide in summer 1976/1977, near 51 Moseley Street, Glenelg.
(Date in my diary but too painful to read).
He was shouting orders to a passer-by to get in his car.
He didn't touch the passer-by so I let him go and he got back in his car and the car drove off.
It hurts me terribly.
A few months later dead bodies started being found.
Police and newspapers started to twig that there was a serial killer.
Fortunately the killer was already dead. (His white Valiant overturned on a slight bend in a road out of Adelaide).

In answer to your question, a person needs years and years of physical and mental preparation. Unless you could fight and win, how could you realistically help ?

The Adelaide incident hurts me because if I'd been more highly trained I could have simply taken particulars from the threatening person and reported them. (Turns out they were on parole for a serious offence). I just "prayed" the incident was a one-off and wouldn't happen again. In my case I would have intervened if the passer-by had been touched. (By the time I ran up, the passer-by had stepped clear). But I wasn't highly trained enough to realise I still needed to take particulars and report the incident.

But I have read of very brave, possibly totally untrained, people, who intervene. (And receive bravery awards).

Unless you are skilled enough to be able to intervene without having to administer a more brutal beating, then mightn't the situation escalate ? Someone will see you administering a brutal beating and administer a more brutal beating to you. Then someone else may intervene, doing the same, to the person who was beating you. Then someone else will intervene and beat them. Then someone else.

That depends on the actual scale of and condition(s) involved in the "brutal beating"! What may brutal or unfair to you may not actually be...
Maybe the alleged "victim" is getting what he/she deserves.

Example - If I see someone brutally beating up their spouse because they are (themselves) drunk/unhappy I'll soon be brutally beating them up (if the police would take too long to come). If so, anyone stopping me would be an idiot! (please give it a grain of salt on the theoretical scenario)

Note: Authorities seldom do what is RIGHT in moral issues... Mostly they cover their own *** as fast and easy as possible. Authorities are there to resolve things, not to make them right! lose your illusions. Fairness is a rare treat!

If your help won't change the circumstances, then don't get physically involved. Call the police if possible.

If you have the capability to stop the beating, yes.

Otherwise, you're just adding to the list of victims.

Because its a natural feeling to help someone in need.
And technically u could be an accomplish if u don't do anything.

Do you not care about your fellow man? what if the one being beaten were you and no one came to your rescue??
Your conscience should be pricking you about helping someone...
If we don't help each other out, then, who cleans up the mess from terrible circumstances like 9-11??? Is it just up to emergency management? What if your family were in the building??
You have think beyond yourself... How would you want someone to treat your mother if they saw someone hurting her?? ( and you weren't able to help her, b/c you didn't live nearby?) Grandma? Your sister? Girlfriend? Husband? Father? Brother? it's a never ending list... now, you might feel differently...
Morals are about doing what is right... is it wrong to help a person?? NO.