Interrogation: What Should You Do in This Scenario?

[russ_watters]

I updated the question please see above

The answer stays the same: there is no line because the concepts are not related.

 

[wrobel]

The answer stays the same: there is no line because the concepts are not related.

O no! they are related very much. Every coward justifies himself by argument that the risk was stupid and that he is saving his life for further battles. Everybody who was in army knows this.

 

[russ_watters]

O no! they are related very much. Every coward justifies himself by argument that the risk was stupid and that he is saving his life for further battles. Everybody who was in army knows this.

That's being a coward and a liar. If you make a decision based on fear, that's cowardice, period. But that still doesn't make the issues logically related.

Also, note that for the military, the decisions are generally not even made by the person who fears the outcome. Some general or admiral does the risk calculation and decides what orders to give. Cowardice should not factor into the calculation because he is not personally at risk.

 

[micromass]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point here. If I don't enter the fight, the woman will be harmed and I will feel bad. But if I do enter the fight, it is almost certain the woman and I will be harmed. So there is no objective benefit for me to enter the fight. The only reason for me to enter the fight is because it would make me feel good. So entering the fight is just a selfish desire not to feel bad, it has no actual benefits.

 

[Evo]

Why do you think the first possibility is good and the second is not? To be honest, if I see 10 strong guys harassing a woman, trying to stop them is foolish and egotistical. Calling the police is the only thing that will really save her.
That constitutes a world war now? Cool, whatever you like to use as definition, but I think that a few (very horrible) acts of terrorism doesn't really weight up to what happened in a world war.

I have to agree with micromass. What happens when you are in a war and what happens when there are isolated terrorist events are very different.

If you see a gang attacking someone and you are unarmed, the best thing you can do is call the police, perhaps video the action to help identify the culprits, and perhaps go to a safe location and make a distracting noise to let them know they have been seen. Otherwise, you will just be another victim, especially if they are armed. You do not know if they are on drugs, which makes them even more dangerous. It's sad, but true. You cannot fool yourself into thinking that you can intercede in a situation like this if you are unarmed and untrained and come out alive.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point here. If I don't enter the fight, the woman will be harmed and I will feel bad. But if I do enter the fight, it is almost certain the woman and I will be harmed. So there is no objective benefit for me to enter the fight. The only reason for me to enter the fight is because it would make me feel good. So entering the fight is just a selfish desire not to feel bad, it has no actual benefits.

You spot three neighborhood teen thugs beating your handicapped 7 year old brother. He is wailing. You are screaming at them to stop. You remove your skates and launch them while running towards the group, totally missing. You don't want to fight them, you just want them to stop. There was no phone. There were no adults or cars that were passing to flag down. Running around screaming around for help would have done no good. The benefits were that there were fewer kicks to his head. I took a "stupid risk". It was common for attacks like this to happen in the neighborhoods where we spent most of our childhood. I had already witnessed the outcomes and knew their intentions. I had to try to stop them. It is nothing to do with bravery here. I just couldn't live with it at the moment, an admittingly selfish motive on my part.

I think the situation the OP is describing is very rare to begin with. Robberies often happen with minimal physical injury and are over quickly. If a weapon is even present, it usually isn't used. Gang rapes probably don't occur in a place where a person would witness it. Having both happen at the same time is unusual. I think my decision would be made by determining the intention of the group firstly. If a person is being raped, then raising a verbal alarm, calling the police and keeping a safe distance would likely stop it. If a person was being robbed, then they should comply. And unless the person was receiving possibly fatal blows, then others should probably not intervene. I reckon that I posted with some bias because of past experience. I meant more so along the times that the groups intention seemed life-threatening to the person or they were receiving possible death blows, that they should intervene to sabotage the attack, not to fight them. I meant it would be more cowardly not to act when a persons was being beaten to near death. He had serious health problems and hadn't been out of leg braces for very long at the time, his bones broke more easily than other childrens.

I apologize to anyone I offended for being biased in my prior post. I still haven't forgiven myself for letting go of those skates and for not keeping nearby- they thought he was alone.

 

[256bits]

It is nothing to do with bravery here. I just couldn't live with it at the moment, an admittingly selfish motive on my part.

You did the right thing, for you and your brother.
Selfish on your part - not on your life. Altruistic behavior to help out members of your group and looking out for one another. If such an act is selfish, it is for the benefit of the group as a whole, which can lead to a better outlook for the individuals as they are all carried along as a complete unit. Besides the closer bonding of the group members that comes from such occurances, the "forces" outside the group will be less inclined to interfere with the individuals of the group and the group itself. consider it an invisible wall of protection.

Looking at the situation and analyzing it from just an 'individual" point of view can lead to an incorrect and incomplete solution.
Helping out someone you do not know, even at the risk of the helping individual coming to harm, and of having no immediate return on the investment of the action of intervention. The intervention can signal to the attackers that this community looks out for one another, and future possible attacks against members of the community, including your mother or sister, may not happen just because of that. There can be a real benefit for direct intervention of an individual for the community, even if at the expense of the individual.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If I saw someone I knew getting dragged away to be hurt I probably would try to leap into action. But that doesn't make it the best thing to do. In a fight I might be able to hold my own against one other guy, providing that he is relatively unskilled. Against multiple people I, like almost everyone, would get hurt and achieve little.

Now there is a chance that just by entering the fray you drive off the thugs. Because they just wanted an easy target or are afraid of drawing more noise etc. But you don't know that from the start. What you do know is that the situation is much more likely to be resolved satisfactorily if you get help, calling the police and yelling for people to come.

This idea that men used to be MEN who would heroically throw themselves at impossible odds is ridiculous because a) it's highly unlikely that people are any less brave than they were (though they are demonstrably less violent) and b) it's not the best way to save anyone.

Consider a different, less evocative scenario: you see a man being dragged down a raging river. Do you:

1) Call for help, maybe trying to get a stick or something to drag him out

or

2) Kick off your shoes and dive right into the rapids to save him