Question for non-believers

[mwok]

My answer was tongue-in-cheek. In reality, if there would be a chance to win, I would try to help. As you presented the question there would be no chance for me to win, being a frail and old man. Of course I would try to call for help. And this still has nothing to do with being a believer, or not.

I know it doesn’t have much to do with being a believer or not. I was just reading something and thought I would try an experiment. I got very interesting responses, so

THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE POSTED THUS FAR!

 

[LJH_80]

Okay, I thought I would give this a few days to “brew”. So, out of a small group of people, only Rhubarb would actually risk bodily harm to stop what was going on?

More that most people thought you were just trolling, and responded in kind.

 

[mwok]

More that most people thought you were just trolling, and responded in kind.

I didn’t get the impression that others thought I wasn’t asking a serious question, although I don’t think some of the posts were completely 100% committed answers. Still, they were fascinating.

So, what do you think that only one out of the group would risk harm to themselves to stop the assailant?

 

[amrin]

I’d move along but stay nearby and call the police, I would try to get a look at the thug so I could give some description and if he went away I would check on the person lying on the floor. I dont carry guns or pepper sprays in my bag so I wouldnt want to endanger myself aswell, no need to have two people beaten on the floor…

However this would be if the thug was a grown up man. If it was a teen I would certainly move towards them both and try to reason with him if not I could beat him. One thing I find awful is kids beating kids and people passing by like its none of their business…

 

[Sair]

The label of secular humanism is a code word bandied about by those who equate humanism only with anti-theistic practices. Certain of modern-day humanists may have an agenda to stamp out religion, but, as is often the case when labels are adopted and a different meaning attached to them (other examples include liberalism, elitism, and conservatism), the meaning of humanism is considerably more complex than most realize. The term dates from the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, and has undergone quite an evolution with regard to definition and emphasis since that time. The expression secular humanism is a rather modern invention of the political domain, whereas ethical humanism has become a moral variation of the term. The word “secular” also has taken on a negative political connotation, whereas originally there was no such pejorative sense attached to the term.

It’s certainly worth remembering that humanism had its origins firmly within the dominant Christian paradigm of the Renaissance (please forgive me for using such an unashamedly posmodernist term as ‘paradigm’, by the way). Furthermore, not all atheists and/or secularists are humanists, since humanism, by definition, places humans at the moral centre of the world.

What most people overlook in internet discussions about the relative merits of religious and irreligious societies - particularly those who point to the totalitarian regimes of the likes of Hitler and Stalin - is that the latter are no more rational than those who place the supposed desires of supernatural beings above the needs of real, verifiable beings. Replacing a theocracy with a communist or fascist state is not a matter of exchanging supernaturalism for rationality - it is only replacing one form of oppressive fanaticism with another.

Okay, that was rather off-topic, but I thought I would get it out of the way before addressing what seems to be the real issue. The OP’s follow-up question about risking bodily harm to stop what was going on - is that really the kind of response you were looking to receive? Do you imagine that this highlights a defining difference between believers and nonbelievers? That believers, perhaps, would throw themselves into the fray with no thought for what harm might befall them, since they believe they will be rewarded for a futile act of supposed heroism that may very well get them killed, and not actually do any good? I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but to be honest, I don’t really see the point in an action that would only result in two dead or critically injured people rather than one. I thought my response made it clear that a situation like this is not necessarily a reliable barometer of any person’s ethical stance - none of us can know what we would do in a seriously threatening situation until we’re faced with one. Sure, I could say, “Yes, I would confront the attacker, thus putting myself at grave risk just for the sake of doing something rather than nothing,” but first of all, I don’t know that I would; secondly, again, such an act of bravado might not actually do any good to anyone involved - it might only give the attacker an ego boost to put two people on the ground instead of one. And as far as the ethic of reciprocity is concerned, yes, there are some things I would like others to do for me in such a situation, but risking their lives is actually not one of them.

 

[mwok]

I am reading a book about morals and according to this book those with good morals would not think of so many excuses to not directly stop a fellow human being, in the name of self preservation, from being so violently harmed.

 

[Sair]

I am reading a book about morals and according to this book those with good morals would not think of so many excuses to not directly stop a fellow human being, in the name of self preservation, from being so violently harmed.

You’re assuming that most people, regardless of their morals, would actually be capable of considered thought in such circumstances. They would either act or not act - you know, the fight, flight or freeze response? We might be capable of rationality, but that doesn’t mean we exercise it as a matter of course. Self-preservation is a deep-seated instinct, one that even a strong religious faith may not overcome. Sure, there are some people who actually would jump in with no regard for what might happen to them. And they might well succeed in defeating the attacker somehow. What I have been saying is that it makes little sense to ask people up front what they definitely would do in such a situation - one can only know if one has been in it. This is not a test of morals, and it certainly isn’t a point of distinction between believers and nonbelievers. Whilst I have the leisure to contemplate what I might do under the given circumstances, I can surely consider the possibilities. I’d like to think I would act - I have unthinkingly run into traffic to rescue my puppy in the past (fortunately without either of us getting hit by cars) and maybe I would feel similarly motivated to help a stranger - but as I said, I don’t know that I would. What do you suppose would become of a person who was convinced that they would jump in to act in circumstances such as you propose - because that would be the moral thing to do - who then, when actually faced with these circumstances, found themselves unable to do what they had always believed they would? Would you, as a moral person, treat them with compassion or contempt?

 

[mwok]

I’ve also read that the moral person acts the moment the value becomes discernable. And because they have values deep-seated in the core of their being, they are able to recognize when such a moment occurs.

And why does the intervention have to be an attack on the assailant? Could one not throw themselves over the victim and use their own body to shield the attacks? Or try to move the victim out of harms way?

As an aside, I asked this question to try to see for myself that good morals are in us all, whether we believe they are or not.

 

[LJH_80]

To give you an honest answer:

Has the author of that book ever actually been in a fight (not a schoolyard kind, but a real fight)?

I am a big guy. I am 270 pounds, I bench 300, and have been in various martial arts for the last 24 years. Not only can I fight, I enjoy fighting (against others who also enjoy fighting).
I also know just how dangerous an untrained 115 pound kid can be with a knife. And with a gun, it changes even more drastically. And unless it’s a sport fight, I never, ever assume my opponent to be unarmed. Nor do I ever assume they’re alone.

Ergo, I would stop the assailant. I would also certainly try to find a way that did not involve a confrontation where I was alone and unarmed. If I thought I could scare the assailant away, or even make him think it wasn’t worth his trouble, I would definitely do that. If there was help I could get, I would also do that. If nothing else, I would call 911, and tell them to trace my cellphone because there’s an attempted murder. At that point, all I need to do is stall the guy, and the assailant needs to think not just about whether he can beat me up/stab me/etc. but he also needs to think about whether he can beat me up before the cops get there, especially if he wants to not leave any evidence.
I would also tell the assailant this, because, even if it doesn’t convince him, the talking stalls him a moment and gets the backup closer.

 

[Sair]

I’ve also read that the moral person acts the moment the value becomes discernable. And because they have values deep-seated in the core of their being, they are able to recognize when such a moment occurs.

And why does the intervention have to be an attack on the assailant? Could one not throw themselves over the victim and use their own body to shield the attacks? Or try to move the victim out of harms way?

As an aside, I asked this question to try to see for myself that good morals are in us all, whether we believe they are or not.

Plenty of people with “good” morals, however they might be defined, value their own lives and safety - discerning that value may mean taking action other than directly intervening. And what if helping a stranger means that your own family and friends will end up grieving for the loss of your life or health? In reality, values often conflict, which is why it isn’t always easy for people to make decisions, even when they have time to think things through. I also don’t recall specifying that an action must be to attack the assailant. I think I actually offered a few alternatives in my initial response. Any of the actions you listed above carry a high level of risk in the circumstance you described. They would also be very likely to result in two dead or badly injured people instead of one, for little or no gain in terms of achieving the desired end, namely the rescuing of the victim. That might be considered heroic by some, but plenty of people would also consider it fairly stupid.

As my own aside, I would suggest that the likelihood of a person intervening would depend, amongst other things, upon their relative size in relation to the attacker, their level of experience - either in terms of martial arts training, for example, or genuine fighting - and also their sex. Even the best of intentions are not going to make me capable of thwarting a large, muscular man with violent intentions and a degree of fighting skill, unless I was very lucky. There’s something to be said for working to one’s particular strengths.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I have been saying is that it makes little sense to ask people up front what they definitely would do in such a situation - one can only know if one has been in it. This is not a test of morals, and it certainly isn’t a point of distinction between believers and nonbelievers. Whilst I have the leisure to contemplate what I might do under the given circumstances, I can surely consider the possibilities.

Couldn’t agree more.

For those (if any) that have tried to provide an honest answer I’m pretty sure we are necessarily not thinking of the same scenario. Not only are we probably of different capabilities physically we’ve probably also filled in the unspecified details differently.

The closest to this scenario in which I’ve actually found myself is coming across some kids that seemed to be fighting (turns out they were playing, but didn’t find that out until I was yelling at them to break it up). I’m not sure how I would have reacted if yelling didn’t work since for totally unrelated reasons I’ve been familiarized with legal limitations on physically intervening .

I think a valid way of testing this (though this is still possibly cruel) would be to set up some people to act out the scenario and introduce some one that does not realize the scene is being acted out. It would probably be necessary to make sure the person does not have their own cell phone to prevent law enforcement from being unnecessarily alerted. There is still risk with this method of testing, such as some one getting beat to a bloody pulp before they realize it’s only a test.

 

[mwok]

Once again I want to thank all who have posted so far.

 

[Sair]

Couldn’t agree more.

For those (if any) that have tried to provide an honest answer I’m pretty sure we are necessarily not thinking of the same scenario. Not only are we probably of different capabilities physically we’ve probably also filled in the unspecified details differently.

The closest to this scenario in which I’ve actually found myself is coming across some kids that seemed to be fighting (turns out they were playing, but didn’t find that out until I was yelling at them to break it up). I’m not sure how I would have reacted if yelling didn’t work since for totally unrelated reasons I’ve been familiarized with legal limitations on physically intervening .

I think a valid way of testing this (though this is still possibly cruel) would be to set up some people to act out the scenario and introduce some one that does not realize the scene is being acted out. It would probably be necessary to make sure the person does not have their own cell phone to prevent law enforcement from being unnecessarily alerted. There is still risk with this method of testing, such as some one getting beat to a bloody pulp before they realize it’s only a test.

Quite so - people tend to react in whatever way occurs to them at the time, and just like we often think of the best thing to have said long after the fact, I suspect we quite often think of the best thing to do after the fact. I’d have to agree, preliminarily, that setting people up to think they were reacting to a real, serious situation when they actually were part of an experiment would be cruel - but it might be the only way of getting a definitive answer to the question of what particular categories of people would do under particular circumstances. I would not consider the results worth the potential trauma, to be honest! Anyone else?