Is Neutrality the same as Complicity?

[lil devils x]

It really isn't as simple as that. Both common and civil law heavily relies on precedent to establish standards. The same law in civil law will not be the same law in common law. It's like having a different context.

I'm not informed on this particular kind of law, but I can see that "obligation to help" laws can easily become "punishment for messing up your required aid" laws. The typical case that I know of in the US is the opposite situation, so-called Good Samaritan laws which protect people who try to help in good faith and protect them if they fail, while not obligating them to make the attempt.

Edit: I don't like the idea of "required to aid" laws in general. It just seems unnecessary. Most people when presented with an emergency will either freeze up from the shock, or will move to help. The people who will intentionally turn their back, I don't think a law would change that. It just becomes one more thing the law can try to use to bludgeon you after the fact, rather than modifying any behavior during an emergency.

Agree. My post means, go slow. That how one looks at how another culture does a thing to see what they would want to apply their own still comes from their own culture. Common Law is ancient, by modern values, brutal in places, but ultimately humanist. Sure, there are people that argue that Human Rights are a fraud perpetrated by Jews to empower them but I don't think so. Common Law matters to us. Ensuring we keep it in mind, I think, does not mean one lives in an, "anglocentric law bubble".

Interesting points. Guy A collapses. Guy B, a doctor, resuscitates him, breaking one of his ribs while doing so. He sues and wins stating he didn't ask for the aid. They've since come up with the "Volunteer Doctrine": a reasonable person would think Guy B presumes Guy A would want the help. Now, rib broken because the doctor messed up? Guy A would win that one. As for the people turning their back? I heard of a case: girl being raped in a public bathroom. The rapists pal stands outside knowing what is going on and does nothing to help. I assume it was determined that he was NOT an accomplice on the look out. If he was an accomplice, I don't think a law would help. If not, maybe? Kitty Genovese syndrome (Would help but assumes someone else is helping already).

They already covered that with 'good Samaritan laws' so the people rendering aid are protected:

Did You Know Texas Has a Good Samaritan Law?

The Texas Good Samaritan Law protects interveners who act selflessly with good intentions to protect someone they perceive to be in danger.

www.carlsonattorneys.com

.
Otherwise we would not be able to save anyone unconscious ever. Even if you are not a Physician, you are covered for providing CPR to someone unconscious, or pulling them from a fire, or other life threatening situation.

 

[Gordon_4]

Agree. My post means, go slow. That how one looks at how another culture does a thing to see what they would want to apply their own still comes from their own culture. Common Law is ancient, by modern values, brutal in places, but ultimately humanist. Sure, there are people that argue that Human Rights are a fraud perpetrated by Jews to empower them but I don't think so. Common Law matters to us. Ensuring we keep it in mind, I think, does not mean one lives in an, "anglocentric law bubble".

Interesting points. Guy A collapses. Guy B, a doctor, resuscitates him, breaking one of his ribs while doing so. He sues and wins stating he didn't ask for the aid. They've since come up with the "Volunteer Doctrine": a reasonable person would think Guy B presumes Guy A would want the help. Now, rib broken because the doctor messed up? Guy A would win that one. As for the people turning their back? I heard of a case: girl being raped in a public bathroom. The rapists pal stands outside knowing what is going on and does nothing to help. I assume it was determined that he was NOT an accomplice on the look out. If he was an accomplice, I don't think a law would help. If not, maybe? Kitty Genovese syndrome (Would help but assumes someone else is helping already).

Broken ribs are common with CPR to the point where an instructor told me if you don’t break any you aren’t doing it properly.

 

[SupahEwok]

Broken ribs are common with CPR to the point where an instructor told me if you don’t break any you aren’t doing it properly.

Indeed, and with the Heimlich maneuver as well (although they don't call it that anymore). Expect vomiting from the latter too, and position accordingly.

 

[gorfias]

Broken ribs are common with CPR to the point where an instructor told me if you don’t break any you aren’t doing it properly.

Indeed, and with the Heimlich maneuver as well (although they don't call it that anymore). Expect vomiting from the latter too, and position accordingly.

Before the volunteer doctrine, even if he had NOT messed up and the rib a logical consequence of reasonable action, the "patient" would still have rights against the doc. : he broke my rib, he owes me as I did not ask for his help. Now he'd only have a case if the doc messed up somehow, which, as you both point out, is not likely the case as a broken rib is not unusual for these procedures.

 

[Fieldy409]

Depends on the context.

If it's happening right in front of you and you could actually stop it with action then yes.

But when it's something that happens on the other side of the world? No. I don't think no action is complicity. It's not my job to go and meddle in everyone's else's business and save the world.

 

[Crowchild]

In some cases it definitely is, as by maintaining neutrality you don't really stand in the way of some bad things happening, so you are part of the group that allows this to happen

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Has anyone made the almost obligatory Futurama reference here?

 

[Hawki]

Has anyone made the almost obligatory Futurama reference here?

You can threaten to bash in my head with a rock, cut my wrists with scissors, or smother my mouth with paper. But neutrality is in my heart, and you will never get me to forfeit it, you cold-hearted space fascist.

 

[fOx]

It seems that every other company is coming out with a solemn black .jpeg expressing their support. For example:


Is Sony right? That 'silence' is complicity?
If I say "I condemn murder", am I no longer complicit? If I don't say that, does that make me complicit?

Is a Buddhist monk who strives to detach himself from the world complicit?
Was Switzerland complicit during both world wars?

Are cops who stand by and watch other cops do illegal things complicit?
If your country is involved in a violent uprising to fight against an oppressive government (for example the 2014 Ukrainian rebellion), are the people who didn't take up arms complicit to the government's oppressive acts?

Did YOU attend a protest recently? Are you complicit?

I think that one can only be considered to be complicit, only if they share some degree of involvement.

Personally, I'd like to think of myself as neutral. I want no part in this current mess. Does that mean that I'm complicit?

Discuss.

Depends. Switzerland took nazi gold, so they were complicite. If you are an officer, and you see a fellow officer brutalize someone, and you do nothing, you are complicite.

If you work 7 days a week to support a family, so you aren't protesting a drone strike in lebanon or whatever, then no, that doesn't mean your complicite.