I understand that there is no explicit right to "apathy;" however, how would you square this with our right to "freedom of speech"?

Doesn't our right to free speech entail not only the right to say something, but also to not say something? And, just as actions have been umbrella'ed under freedom of speech, doesn't that also mean that non-action is part of said freedom?

A second point I have is how the legislation would be written. I understand that you would rather educate, and not punish, with this law. However, I doubt you would be the one writing it, correct?

How this law would be defined begs a lot of questions. State or Federal? How do we define what would be illegal? What type of crime would one need to report on?

If the types of crimes are broadly labeled "felonies" or "injured people", then what about people who observe drug use? Not only is it a felony, but also (according to some scientific papers) can cause physical and mental harm to the user. Are "Samaritans" then obligated to call the police?

And for those who may claim this is a slippery slope argument; does anyone remember the Patriot Act? How about the proposal for mail carriers and utility professionals to report suspicious activity when making professional calls? As I recall, there was plenty of moral outrage towards both of those, yet they were both billed as "helping to secure the citizenry."

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

Martin Buber is good company for anyone Professor...

If we treat sins of omission (not acting) with the same severity as we do sins of commission (acting illegally), soon a large part of the population will be in jail.

I believe "nonsense" is the polite way of describing that statement. Sins of omission can vary in degree just as do sins of commission.  Don't agree with my pseudonymous opinion?  Will you grant standing in the matter to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation.

...

There are, of course, cases in which on account of the special subject matter and circumstances it may happen that an omission is more heinous [than commission]."

Professor Etzioni, perhaps I was too curt in my comments that you quote but I find the notion of enacting a new law based on an "ain't it awful" news story about a random event ludicrous.  We have more than enough laws on the books to cover just about anything anyone might want to do or not as I explained in an expansion of the above comment a couple of posts down in Duty to Assist.

You seem to have missed my point. I suggested using existing laws rather than creating new ones.   Some deaths resulting from depraved indifference are already prosecuted as manslaughter and second-degree murder.  If the act is heinous enough to be prosecuted, then prosecute it so that it actually might deter others from behaving similarly and doesn't just fatten the coffers of local law enforcement. 

I haven't changed my mind.  I doubt you will yours. 

Best regards,

Emma

Let me add my appreciation for the response, which was a pleasant surprise.

There are, I believe, education as well as ethical issues here. As I believe others have mentioned, in the emergency services, it's an unsolved problem for the 911 answering point to become overwhelmed with reports on the same event. I say there is an issue of education in being able to give a clear, concise emergency report, and respond quickly to dispatch questions. Last week, I was on a long moving trip, and we were blocked by a very nasty accident -- I could see injuries incompatible with life from some distance away. Crews were working with extrication and stabilization, and dispatch didn't need to know more.

Frustrated motorists, however, had started backing, at high speed, up an on-ramp, which apparently had not been blocked to incoming traffic. My friend grabbed the cell phone first, and gave the quick and specific response I'd expect from a professional seaman: emergency condition, location, specific supplemental information, wait for questions, and hang up if none.

Most people have heard hysterical 911 calls from which it's incredibly hard to understand the problem. Even with professionals involved, although there were technical problems with the radios, communications at the World Trade Center on 9/11 partially broke down. More than legislating a duty to assist, I'd like to see even more drills, from earliest education, in how to report emergencies.

Continuing to shop does suggest a moral issue. This reminded me of Terry Kelly's A Pittance of Time, a short Canadian video on a different sort of communitarianism. Fair warning: I can never watch this without reaching for tissues.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Freedom of speech doesn't protect your "right" to harm people by slandering them, or telling them lies to defraud them or that endanger them -- even though these are forms of speech. There simply is no such right. Why should freedom of speech include the "right" to harm people by remaining silent when they need help?

It's a natural human response, faced with strong criticism and a huge number of comments to wade through, to read and respond highly selectively, even with the best intentions. So I'll join in appreciation that Etzioni has dared at all, but caution him about that inevitability. One might easily note only comments one can dismiss for their tone alone, that supply interesting examples in support, or that are opposed but paint the issues in a comforting black and white.

Here I think Etzioni came very close to focusing on just those three things, the anger, the heroism, and the choices presented when one is suspcious of most laws as incursion on freedom. Within that framework, I'm not clear on what's meant by laws to educate rather than enforce. But still, I'm grateful to Piotr for enriching what in fact were the vast majority of comments. They were suspicious of the story's accuracy (and apparently rightly so), suspicious that there is a broad problem to be addressed at all, suspicious of legislating by anecdote (think Saddam, welfare queens), suspicious of the agenda (usually right wing) of those who do so, and concerned for applications of the law not in such extreme cases but in every events we encounter.

One post noted the dilemma all of us in big cities face with homeless people. We may or may not have a responsibility, but there may be other responsibiliites here of society and government that might be explored, too. It's important that those who make policy get a sense of the ordinary. Locked in the Beltway, one may not.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Destor's point is fair enough. Of course, there's already a right to privacy,  and there's enough broad concern in all societies for the dangers of individuals acting on their own that we create social services like police. Americans may excercise their right to apathy more than most, though, when it comes to the political realm. There'd be a broader resistance to mandatory voting, for example. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

"What is clear is that sometimes people do the right thing and sometimes they don't. We should neither count on human nature nor despair of it." I like that.

It was again something mentioned in the other thread that Etzioni didn't have time to mention, but the problem of the one who doesn't act like this comes up rather less often in discussions of moral philosophy than one might expect. Sometimes the difference between action and inaction comes up in another context, such as the infamous trolley problem. (Would you divert a train from a track where it would collide with 10 passengers to a track where it would kill 5?) Or in the not dissimilar arguments over what is sometimes called the doctrine of double effect, from Aquinas, meaning that one can accept something that one knows is wrong if one's intention was to do something else that one knows is right, and that is done. Say, a Catholic might be opposed to abortion but not be blameworthy if it's the result of saving the mother's life.

As I noted in the other thread, though, a closer parallel is in Utilitarianism, with discussions of how one's moral instinct to save the life in front of you should carry over to saving more cheaply and easily the lives of many others you don't know, as in donating to Third World children.

I mention all that mostly because there is a kind of parallel to Etzioni's point: should we feel guilty if we don't act on principle against war or global warming or something else we know is pressing and costs lives? It's not something we can legislate either, but it's a principal that can guide individual action and lead to legislation on those specific issues rather than on the broader aspects of human conduct. It's worth mentioning because it's another reason to note an intrinsic conservative bias in Etzioni's reliance on the anecdote. He can worry about regulating who calls 911, but is he willing to fight to end a war?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Because society's obligations to its members is different from members' obligations to each other.

Because Sam was not the proximate cause of Jane's death, whereas "someone" would be the proximate cause of Sam's.

Because the sort of law you propose could not possibly be written in such a way as to be uniformly enforced.

Because if a crowd of people came upon an applicable situation, each would be legally compelled to get in the others' way.

Because the determination of whether a person acted appropriately to assist would necessarily be made by persons who were not there, didn't know the state of mind nor the skill set of the accused, didn't know the surrounding circumstances, and would be forced into making a judgement that is ridiculously subjective.

Because we need the Federal government more involved in our morality like we need another 12-year term for Dubya.

That's enough reasons, but I can probably gen up a few more if you need them.

What made the scene absolutely uncanny was that there were hundreds of people close by who simply ignored the attack as if it wasn't even happening

Leaving the theatre in London we came out into an alley. Two men were fighting . The crowd , mostly middle class women ,stopped and circled the fighters saying "You must stop this". "Go home". Without any one individual particularly in charge they pushed forward so that they almost physically separated the two , who in fact then stopped.

There a variety of conclusions I could draw from comparing the two anecdotes. But it's more likely they'd reflect my own predjudices than that they'd necessarily follow from the facts.

What is clear is that sometimes people do the right thing and sometimes they don't.We should neither count on human nature nor despair of it .