Dilemma

fedor.2.

Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation ["Good Samaritan" laws] as well?

Absurdum

Roger Smith seems like a ****.

Heroes get chicks, FACT.

KeithM89_old

Hmm - i remember being asked this in Religion in 5th year.

Youd want to be a cold-hearted bastard not to save a drowning kid...:)

Bog

KeithM89 wrote: »

Hmm - i remember being asked this in Religion in 5th year.

They do seem to be obsessed with Rogers in religion...

alwaysadub

Anyone who can easily save a child and doesn't cos they don't want to ruin their clothes is some bollox!

Liam Byrne

FFS! I thought this might actually be an interesting - and actual - dilemma!

1) Feck the "good clothes" - unless "Roger Smith" is like that camp vacuous idiot whose ad makes me puke and switch off Living TV

2) Strip off and save the kid

My.testicals

Maybe that kid will survive, and become such a strong swimmer as a result of surviving his ordeal that he will grow up to compete against Roger in the 2020 Olympics. Roger, a bit past his sell-by by now, is looking to finish his successful career on a high. But the little boy, who never forgot the cruel, callous stranger who refused to help him because he wanted to keep his clothes dry, has been planning his revenge for years.

At the sound of the starting pistol Roger, the kid and all the Chinese athletes dive in. Roger and the kid battle it out for the lead, their passion fuelling them both on. Vengence wins out over vanity and the kid beats Roger by .000000006 of a second. The kid is victorious. He has grown up to be the winner. He blows on his whistle and scurries from the pool as his specially trained man-eating shark goes for Roger. The vain Roger doesn't stand a chance.

There's a lesson here, folks.

ronnie3585

Rodger Smith should mind his fu*king business and go cut me a switch.

Turtyturd

alwaysadub wrote: »

Anyone who can easily save a child and doesn't cos they don't want to ruin their clothes is some bollox!

What if that child grew up to be Hitler?

mikom

Robert Smith, a quite competent goth, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries.

The water is cold and he is afraid his eyeliner may run -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Moral of the story: Boys don't cry.

SeaFields

Roger is a cnut. Nuff said. Save the child.

I'll give a further dilemma tho....what if i wasn't a child but a "down and out" who threw themselves in the water?

I've seen a few alcoholics/addicts pulled out of the river lee in cork and often asked would it be worth endangering yourself if you had to make a split second decision.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

No, because the parents of the boy are going to sue the (new) pants off him because he's obviously loaded and he touched the boy while resucing him.

Quiet you

Lay off Roger. If a dumbass kid decides to go swimming at night by himself or manages to somehow fall into the water he shouldn't be saved for the good of humanity.
How are we expected to evolve as a species if we keep saving the idiots that natural selecetion has selected to not pass on their DNA?

Roger is a hero.

Oranage2

Where is the kid's parents? sounds like the kid will be a future drug addict homeless beggar so Roger did the right thing by putting society first

kraggy

Does one "catch a cold" or "catch cold"? I've heard both used.

Son Of A Vidic

Robert Smith, a typically incompetent banker, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to him if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries.

The water is cold and he is afraid his Rolex maybe damaged -- he doesn't want to get his designer suit or cash laden wallet wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Moral of the story: Bankers launder their own money and not for anyone else.

stovelid

mikom wrote: »

Robert Smith, a quite competent goth, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries.

The water is cold and he is afraid his eyeliner may run -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Moral of the story: Boys don't cry.

Why can't I be you?

Monsieur Folie

Turtyturd wrote: »

What if that child grew up to be Hitler?

Then he'd probably spare your life and recruit you to the movement (instead of having you shot down) for saving him as a child.

Star Bingo

kraggy wrote: »

Does one "catch a cold" or "catch cold"? I've heard both used.

well did bob marley "catch a fire" or did he "catch fire". i'd go with neither

WolfForager

Does Roger Smith often use the pre-fix "Agent" before his surname?

If so, i'm sure he has bigger things on his plate.

dashboard_hula

Moral obligation - yes.

Legal obligation - I don't think so. Aren't Good Samaritan laws there to protect people who try to assist persons in medical danger from getting sued if something goes awry? I think the "legal obligation" only applies to medical professionals to assist in a medical situation once they've established that there's no danger to their own lives. Something about how no medic can refuse to treat someone in front of them.

Lemsiper

Go home, Roger!

ascanbe

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Robert Smith, a typically incompetent banker, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to him if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries.

The water is cold and he is afraid his Rolex maybe damaged -- he doesn't want to get his designer suit or cash laden wallet wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Moral of the story: Bankers launder their own money and not for anyone else.

Robert Smith wrote 'Charlotte sometimes', 'Just like heaven', etc.
So he can do what he wants.

orourkeda

Surely it's a matter for his own conscience.

Johnny Tightlips1

Id tell the kid in the water to go suck on a lemon.

ascanbe

If an Ayn Rand acolyte shows up, this thread could go on for a while.

desaparecidos

kraggy wrote: »

Does one "catch a cold" or "catch cold"? I've heard both used.

Catch a cold.

You probably just heard a Yorkshire person saying it.

Kimono-Girl

well if it was someone i knew in the water then i would expect Roger Smith to do something! If it wasn't........meh






:pac:

Unpossible

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Moral obligation - yes.

Legal obligation - I don't think so. Aren't Good Samaritan laws there to protect people who try to assist persons in medical danger from getting sued if something goes awry? I think the "legal obligation" only applies to medical professionals to assist in a medical situation once they've established that there's no danger to their own lives. Something about how no medic can refuse to treat someone in front of them.

I think someone on here said that in Germany it means you have to act if someone is in trouble

smk89

**** moral imperatives, being cold does not give you the cold!! The cold is a virus!

The Samaritan laws only need the person to call the emergency services

Mr Benevolent

Is this something to do with American Dad?