I've never been able to understand this mentality.

Yes we would like to be helped and we can pretty much guarantee someone will help us due to the masses caring for each other, but why does that mean we should help?

Because it's "right"? I'm not really sure where people are trying to go with this argument .

What is there to understand? Treat others the way you want to be treated, if you wanted to be helped, you help others.

This "mentality" is the most sensible and most caring, if you don't get this basic principle, that's out of my hands.

No we cannot guarantee it, humans have often times allowed horrible things to happen (as with the Penn State incident among other things) despite knowledge and abiltiy to stop them and this thread has also proven the point that people will not always help.

I hate to say it, but for most crimes, there isn't a large captive audience and I don't care if I come off as petulant, but if you have the opportunity to prevent someone's rape or murder and do nothing (calling the police puts you at little to no risk), I consider your moral compass compromised. Nobody said you have to fight the assailant, but you can't take out your cell phone to call the cops?...Seriously? People have no problem taking their cell phone out to text about meaningless asinine nonsense.



That's my stance indifference is complicity.

It would be if everyone in the world but me followed the "Golden Rule", but that's not the case.

It's outside of my sphere of concern, I will do my part, what other people choose to do and not do is none of my concern, I'm just making a statement on the subject, people throw out the subjective morality card on everything, instead of defending a stance with something substantive or meaningful. I wouldn't have written out a well thought out response, especially after I answered your question, my whole post is ignored for you to tell me that it's subjective. Why not just say that in the first place? instead of saying I don't get this mentality explain it to me....


I just really, really hope that if someone is in trouble that someone will be around who will intervene on their behalf instead of people not giving a damn or just being "too scared" and not lifting a finger to help by simply calling 911 or anything.

You did.

I assumed that it was for the "right" thing to do, which based on your response, is what it is. What I got out of it anyway. I didn't ask for the well-thought post you decided to give me. You explained it to me in two sentences.

Okay.

Two or three years ago, I witnessed this guy I just met getting robbed at gun point. I did nothing to stop it. I felt bad about it for a while, but ultimately him losing his iPhone was a safer bet than either of us losing our lives.

Take into consideration that while calling the police is helpful it also doesn't matter. Unless there are cops already there who knows how long it could take the cops to get there. So if I seen a crime I would take immediate action then call the police.

Kind of agree with Glock. I'd rather be alive and "selfish" (which nobody but myself knew), than a dead hero with ten stab wounds in his face. Also I mean, just because you try to break something up, it doesn't mean you will. The attacker may just end up with two victims instead of one, and if he's armed (which statistically most people who commit muggings or rapes on the streets are), then he probably will, unless you're armed too and you sucker punch the dude by shooting him in the back of the head. And good luck getting away with that in most places.

I would be inclined to assess the situation. If there's one attacker, and he doesn't seem armed, I would consider breaking it up. Otherwise, I'll keep my pretty face.