| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 11:35:00 AM | You're standing outside a burning building, and someone is trapped inside. You are the only one with enough strength to pull a person out of the building- do you enter? Do you have a moral obligation to do so? What if it may cost you your life?
What if you were saving an infant? What about a cat or dog?
What if you were one of the people who could not- would you judge the person poorly for not being willing to put their life in harms way? Would you assert this morality, expecting and even demanding others put their life at risk because they are capible of it?
And what of Firefighters- is it moral to enter a burning building, causing firefighters to potientally have to find 2 people inside the burning building rather than one, putting their lives in further and potientally unnessary danger?
This Hypothetical came from the "Animal Rights" thread- which honestly irked me, because one block away less than 3 monthes ago, an 18 year old lost his life trying to rescue his dog by going back in. Seemed like a waste of life- oddly enough, some people feel otherwise. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 1:17:35 PM | You're standing outside a burning building, and someone is trapped inside. You are the only one with enough strength to pull a person out of the building- do you enter?
One would have to weigh the odds of dying against the odds of saving that life, based on the perceived value of both lives in question. If the jeopardized life was that of an infant, I suspect that most people would instinctively try to save it unthinkingly and without weighing the odds. If it was an adult, most people would probably perceive their own life as being at least equal in value to the endangered one and start calculating the risk/benefit ratio of acting. If the endangered life was one you knew and loved, even a pet, you might act as instinctively as you would for an infant.
I feel bad for the kid that died trying to save his dog, but I can also understand why he did it. If a strange dog was going to burn if I didn't save it, I'd need pretty fair confidence that I could save it without risking too much in the attempt before I ran in. If it were my dog, I wouldn't think twice and might quite possibly die trying to save him. I feel about that dog pretty much the same way I feel about my kids! (he doesn't bum as much money, but he sheds more, so I guess it balances out)
On the subject of firemen, I think of them as professional heroes. They took on a hazardous, high risk job, but they did take it on, so it is their job to put their own lives at risk (within reason).
would you judge the person poorly for not being willing to put their life in harms way?
You are under no moral obligation to imperil your own life to save another, so how could you be judged for not doing it? It would be nice if everyone had the courage to risk it, but if everyone was a hero, there wouldn't be any heroes, because heroism would be the norm. (Wouldn't it be nice if everybody had that kinda guts?)
s it moral to enter a burning building, causing firefighters to potientally have to find 2 people inside the burning building rather than one, putting their lives in further and potientally unnessary danger?
I would think any "rescue activity" ought to be undertaken by the firemen, so I would think it proper to defer to their judgment on the matter and not make their job harder. (though if it were one of my family and they considered it too risky to try to save them, I'd probably wind up in the house burning with my family member...even if it was the dog!)
Seemed like a waste of life- oddly enough, some people feel otherwise.
You or I may value his life much more than the life of his dog, but we have to look at it from his perspective. I have no doubt that he loved his dog and the love & devotion between man and dog usually makes mincemeat of any rational calculation of comparative value. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 2:02:20 PM |
With firefighters its a different story. They voluntarily train for a job, and take an oath to save lifes. It becomes their civic duty. They DO have an obligation to enter the burning building. This obligation forms when they take their oath. Actually, firefighters have the obligation of evaluating the situation and if it is determined to place them at risk, they are NOT to enter the building.
They aren't paid enough to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty or obligation.
You are the only one with enough strength to pull a person out of the building- do you enter? Do you have a moral obligation to do so? What if it may cost you your life? The person in the building would die if it were left up to me... the only person(s) I would risk my life for would be my children, anyone else is of less importance than my personal safety.
What if you were one of the people who could not- would you judge the person poorly for not being willing to put their life in harms way? Would you assert this morality, expecting and even demanding others put their life at risk because they are capible of it? I would hope that I wouldn't pass judgement... that would be quite hypocritical of me to do so...
And what of Firefighters- is it moral to enter a burning building, causing firefighters to potientally have to find 2 people inside the burning building rather than one, putting their lives in further and potientally unnessary danger? As I mentioned, they are under no obligation to place themselves in jeopardy to save someone... they're given the tools to evaluate situations, and if found that the particular situation would place them in personal danger, they are trained to do their best to reduce the risk to the individual but not to enter the building. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 2:18:00 PM |
when is entering a burning building not placing yourself at risk? When the burning is in the early stages and superficial... there's less structural damage and less likelyhood of becoming injured upon entering the building.
When the building is new or relatively new and less inclined to have hot spots jumping through the walls of the building or the ventilation systems.
When the fire is localized to an upper area and the building has a firedoor system that reduces the likelyhood of the fire spreading to the populated area.
There are many instances of the firefighters being able to evaluate a risk assessment and determine that it is safe for them, as trained professionals, to enter the building with their gear and rescue a person. Having spent years with a man that did this for a living, I learned a lot about firefighting... | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 3:04:01 PM | One factor that affects whether I would personally go into a burning building is the fact that I'm a father and the main income earner. If I die, it's not just me, it's also my kids and my Ex that gets hurt directly.
Consider as well that a burning building can kill you in a number of ways... structural failure, smoke inhalation, CO poisoning, getting trapped/burned, etc.
Before I ever went in, I'd want to be pretty sure I could get back out.
And one strategy would be that I would look for a way to save the person without going in... specifically I'd go get my ladder and a hammer. Then I'd climb to the window where the person is, use the hammer to smash the window if necessary and get the person out.
Yes I have a taaaall ladder and a hammer.
If the person was passed out, then I'd consider bringing rope to tie around the person and easing them down. Sane deal for a larger dog. For a small dog or cat, I'd put on some work gloves and just carry the cat/dog down.
Now if it was my own kids and my own house, I'd still be able to do the ladder thing since I store my ladder outside under my deck. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 4:05:30 PM |
You're standing outside a burning building, and someone is trapped inside. You are the only one with enough strength to pull a person out of the building- do you enter?
How would I know that, if there where others around then more than one of us could work together.
Do you have a moral obligation to do so?
Nope, I have free will.
What if it may cost you your life?
Anything you do can cost you your life and its going to end anyway.
What if you were saving an infant?
100% for sure then I am going in.
You save a infant from a fire and you get sent directly to the top of dating pile.
What about a cat or dog?
Although the reward is directly related to the relative cuteness of said animal and possible make ya cry back story I think it is still worth the risk.
What if you were one of the people who could not- would you judge the person poorly for not being willing to put their life in harms way?
If you are not willing to do it yourself then you are not able to judge.
Would you assert this morality, expecting and even demanding others put their life at risk because they are capible of it?
Nope, more glory for me.
And what of Firefighters- is it moral to enter a burning building, causing firefighters to potientally have to find 2 people inside the burning building rather than one, putting their lives in further and potientally unnessary danger?
It is not a question of morality.
Yes it could make it harder for the fire dept and in some cases you could be setting yourself up to get sued if you somehow injure the person. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 4:23:02 PM | Thought this question looked familiar.
I am worth more to my family dead than I am now...so I have nothing much to lose. So go save someone? Why not?
No..I don't have a moral obligation to do so...nor am I paid to do so, like a fireman is.
If I die? Family collects my insurance. The bills go away. They get a fresh start in life. Win-win from where I'm standing.
Infant? human life...worth a shot.
animal? nope...forget it. I've seen horses run INTO a burning barn...totally panicked. Think you are gonna stop them or get them out? Doubtful.
A dog or cat? Nope...chances are it will be totally freaked and do you enough harm to keep you from making any kind of escape.
If I couldn't, why should I judge someone else who "couldn't"?
Some are PAID to do it. Let them take the risks, if they are there. Otherwisae why beat myself up about it?
If they had been on the scene, I wouldn't have gone in, now would I? If they show up after, then yeah...they have the job of saving my butt, while I try to save someone elses. We do have "good samaritan laws" ya know! | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:32:29 PM |
You're standing outside a burning building, and someone is trapped inside. You are the only one with enough strength to pull a person out of the building- do you enter? If I can do so, without dying, then ideally yes.
Do you have a moral obligation to do so? I would like to think so.
What if it may cost you your life? Then I don't think it's fair to gamble 2 lives, rather than 1 definitely dies and 1 definitely lives.
What if you were saving an infant? Same as saving a person.
What about a cat or dog? I don't think I'd put my life at risk to save an animal. But if my life was not at risk, then why not save a life? It's still a life, even if it isn't quite the same as a human beings.
What if you were one of the people who could not- would you judge the person poorly for not being willing to put their life in harms way? Would you assert this morality, expecting and even demanding others put their life at risk because they are capible of it? Nope. I've been in dangerous situations before. Scared me witless. I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling too uncomfortable to try. But I'd have something to say about someone who would not feel threatened by the situation, but simply refused to act out of callousness.
And what of Firefighters- is it moral to enter a burning building, causing firefighters to potientally have to find 2 people inside the burning building rather than one, putting their lives in further and potientally unnessary danger? As I wrote, generally, I think that it's not fair to gamble 2 lives, when 1 would definitely live. Only if the one entering the building would not have anyone else trying to save him, and had no friends or family or girlfriend/boyfriend to be riddled with grief over him, and I really doubt that anyone like that would be likely to dive in anyway.
This Hypothetical came from the "Animal Rights" thread- which honestly irked me, because one block away less than 3 monthes ago, an 18 year old lost his life trying to rescue his dog by going back in. Seemed like a waste of life- oddly enough, some people feel otherwise. The same has happened a few times in this country. I can't exactly argue with people who go into a burning building or a river to save their dog. But I'd like to think that I'd persuade them not to. But I'd still bury the dog, and say a prayer over it. Who says that dogs can't go to heaven? | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/8/2009 9:06:25 PM | There would be different factors to consider; firstly does the trapped person owe me any money? How much?  | |
|
| |
| |
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:45:09 PM | | hi... I have learned to listen to my conscience so if it directs me to go in I will not second guess that ... all children need protection and I want to help people anyhow, people have helped me...sometimes people react first and think of themselves second, I admire that... oh my, I love my puppy and I would think of him so I would be compelled to save a defenseless animal... blessings | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/10/2009 1:51:52 AM | | a fire fighter, I would hope, would still be allowed to think for himself, and not enter a total piece of crap, burning burning piece of crap, piece of crap, to save his mother! | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:36:51 AM |
a fire fighter, I would hope, would still be allowed to think for himself, and not enter a total piece of crap, burning burning piece of crap, piece of crap, to save his mother! Of course they make their own decisions... anyone that thinks they are obligated to enter any and every building to rescue someone regardless of their personal safety really needs to stop smoking the ganja, the few brain cells that are left are not sustainable... | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/10/2009 8:42:04 AM | One thing I can say, if you run into a burning building to save a cat, you had better come out with the cat. If you emerge with the cat, you're a hero. If you emerge without the cat, you're an idiot.
(If you fail to emerge at all, you're a tragic story on the front page). | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/10/2009 8:43:19 AM |
(If you fail to emerge at all, you're a tragic story on the front page). You're also a candidate for a Darwin Award... | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:44:57 AM | I have been in a burning building before. Let me tell you that smoke makes it virtually impossible to pull people out, though I did call out my friends name for a long time (he had panicked and ran into the burning section) before running to safety myself. I would have dove in to get him if I could have seen or heard him.
It was an interesting experience, I felt no fear, was exhilerated, calm and focused and had a lot of physical energy, enough to quickly move a whole pile of stuff blocking the fire escape.
My friend ended up finding his way back himself. :-D So alls well that ended well. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 11/15/2009 2:46:41 PM | | Been there, done that. I have pulled people out of burning buildings. I would act to save an infant, or most dogs, and some other people, without a moment's hesitation. I would not lift a finger to save a cat, or some people...such as Michael Jackson. It is moral to expect cops/firefighters to put their lives on the line because that is what we pay them for. To do less when called upon would make the cops/firefighter a fraud. Other people may do as they choose, and I would not judge them either way regardless of their choices. Some dogs are worth the risk, and others are not, and such is true of people, too. Non-firefighters who enter burning buildings take their chances, and should not be a priority for fire fighters to rescue. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:31:41 PM | It would depend on my ensemble that day. New suit? Forget it. Old jeans and a hoodie, yeah why not.
And firemren don't have to enter burning buildings. They do so because they enjoy it. It's as the kids say, mucho macho. They do not, however, enjoy it when they burn their mustaches.
And kudos to the kid for trying to rescue his best friend - dog - who would have done the same for him. There's nothing wrong dying doing what you love or doing it for one you love. | |
|
| Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 11/19/2009 10:01:42 AM | Op,
A single breath of smoke from the burning plastic, polyester, vinyl, and other noxious gasses, will instantly incapacitate a person. Adding the fact that you can't see anything at all in the smoke, this should not be decided based on any kind of emotions. If you can save someone without entering the smoke, then do so, otherwise no, unless you know exactly where they are, and can get in, get them, and get out, without seeing or breathing. If you take a breath in the smoke, you'll be dead. | |
|
|
Home
login 
