Car Clamper / Was I Right To Leave Him..

[Structaural]

This is why is was slightly surprised at the overwhelming opinion that there was a moral obligation to render people assistance regardless of situation - because IME it's almost never how people behave in practice (although thankfully there are noteworthy exceptions). I used to think it was a big-city thing, but having now spent plenty of time living in the country as well I'm not so sure.

So people are cunts on the whole is what you think?, maybe you're right. I like to think that isn't the case, but I tend towards idealism. I see enough co-operation and people helping each other around me...

I don't think it's moral, I think its ethical (ie in this case, do you behave with humanity to your fellow humans or do you do what 'everyone else does') and the fact that no-one helped that guy on the bus doesn't make it 'right', the norm or how it should be.

 

[snadge]

I'm gonna play golf now, take my heat of the moment anger out on a defenceless little white ball

 

[Structaural]

I'm prepared to live with the consequences of my actions.

Well you have to don't you?

 

[Fruitloop]

So people are cunts on the whole is what you think?, maybe you're right. I like to think that isn't the case, but I tend towards idealism. I see enough co-operation and people helping each other around me...

I don't think it's moral, I think its ethical (ie in this case, do you behave with humanity to your fellow humans or do you do what 'everyone else does') and the fact that no-one helped that guy on the bus doesn't make it 'right', the norm or how it should be.

My position in a nutshell is that there's no absolute ethical 'should' about it - si Dieu n'existe pas, tout est permis. However, people are inherently social and co-operative as you say, although in a situational and adaptive way rather than one that lends itself to hard and fast rules.

I was surprised at the vehemence with which some people held the view that assistance should always be rendered, and also at the hostility towards dirtysanta who had done something (in my view) perfectly understandable, although admittedly perhaps falling below the highest standards of ethical conduct. My interest was to poke these views with a stick for a while to find out their basis, not to say that unconditional assistance was in any way wrong or foolish.

I suspect the rules are somewhat elastic in nearly all cases - most people would feel differently if they were exposing themselves to danger in the process of helping, for example, or if the person had previously assaulted either them or a member of their family.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well you have to don't you?

indeedy

 

[dirtysanta]

i still don't see where you draw the line? how bad does somebody have to be for you to leave them? and how good for you to do something? can't you see that you're playing Judge and jury by doing this.

I know. Buts got now't to do with how good or bad they are. Its how his actions have affected me over a period of time,and now, how they have affected him.
This is what happends when things get personal, sometimes. People like me who would normally do the right thing find themselves consumed by that basic but overwhelming human emotion, anger. Iv come out the pub, fucking pissed, seen him, the angers kicked in, fuelled by my bellyfull of stella and at that time all that was going in my head was fuck him ! Someone else will come along a second. I am NOT helping him. I despise him.
Im an amateur human. I dont always do the right thing. Does anyone ?

 

[PacificOcean]

I suspect the rules are somewhat elastic in nearly all cases - most people would feel differently if they were exposing themselves to danger in the process of helping, for example, or if the person had previously assaulted either them or a member of their family.

This is a completely disingenuous argument as it's totally different to what we are discussing.

 

[Fruitloop]

No it's not. I'm saying that the rule that you have to help in all circumstances probably doesn't stand as it is. In order to bring it into line with people's actual conduct it has to at least be modified to 'provided you can do so wihout significant personal risk of harm' or something.

 

[sam/phallocrat]

pompous highminded arse.

Best post so far

(edit - for ironic value that is)

 

[tw1ggy5]

But best in the sense of it being aimed at the quoted or the poster.

 

[Fruitloop]

pompous highminded arse.

Whatever, dude. What I meant was if I was a cunt to people I wouldn't feel like I could compel their assistance.

I think there's a somewhat unpleasant side to your personality coming out in this thread, tbh.

 

[Dubversion]

Whatever, dude. What I meant was if I was a cunt to people I wouldn't feel like I could compel their assistance.

I think there's a somewhat unpleasant side to your personality coming out in this thread, tbh.

that's ironic, since i feel exactly the same about all the people suggesting that leaving someone lying in the street covered in blood is a reasonable form of behaviour.

 

[Structaural]

My position in a nutshell is that there's no absolute ethical 'should' about it - si Dieu n'existe pas, tout est permis.

(You're pushing my uncomprensive education to the limit here
Fair enough but there are consequences as discussed. You are free to do and think whatever you want but you live in a society that has its own moral code and you're a human which has its own ethical code. You are free to transcend these entirely but you may be expunged from said society. All is choice.

Indeed, but there are consequences to that
However, people are inherently social and co-operative as you say, although in a situational and adaptive way rather than one that lends itself to hard and fast rules.

Exactly.. each case needs to be looked at individually which is what we are doing here.

I was surprised at the vehemence with which some people held the view that assistance should always be rendered, and also at the hostility towards dirtysanta who had done something (in my view) perfectly understandable, although admittedly perhaps falling below the highest standards of ethical conduct. My interest was to poke these views with a stick for a while to find out their basis, not to say that unconditional assistance was in any way wrong or foolish.

I don't think that is the case - people are vehement about the fact that someone walked away from someone who was seriously hurt. Sometimes you can help sometimes you can't. He could have helped.

I suspect the rules are somewhat elastic in nearly all cases - most people would feel differently if they were exposing themselves to danger in the process of helping, for example, or if the person had previously assaulted either them or a member of their family.

Not relevant.

 

[snadge]

I know. Buts got now't to do with how good or bad they are. Its how his actions have affected me over a period of time,and now, how they have affected him.
This is what happends when things get personal, sometimes. People like me who would normally do the right thing find themselves consumed by that basic but overwhelming human emotion, anger. Iv come out the pub, fucking pissed, seen him, the angers kicked in, fuelled by my bellyfull of stella and at that time all that was going in my head was fuck him ! Someone else will come along a second. I am NOT helping him. I despise him.
Im an amateur human. I dont always do the right thing. Does anyone ?

no they don't, everyone fucks up once in a while, it's all part of the learning curve to who you become, you either carry on fucking up or make a concious descision to be better.

 

[Fruitloop]

An interesting ethical comparison is the psychological experiment (can't remember the name at the moment) where one of two kids is given an amount or sweets to divide between them, and if the other agrees they get the stuff, otherwise it's withheld. Young children will refuse a too-small proportion even though it acts against their own immediate interests, suggesting that some degree of social sanction is pretty innate. I wonder if in fact a society where people were treated the same regardless of their behaviour would be as functional as one that operates on more natural, although less 'moral' rules. It's also interesting that the injunction to help, whilst obviously strongly felt by a number of people, isn't enshrined in law in any way.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I have far more faith in DS's moral code, than those who stick up for criminal clampers and cuss people who disagree.

 

[madamv]

Coming out the boozer on Monday night i see the local clamper who makes everybodys lives a misery is out and about. Fuck, this c*nt even clamped some poor lass a few weeks ago who had 2 kids with her was obviously expecting another, she was hsyterical and he was sniggering.
This twat revels in his job and sneakes around ready to pounce the second your car is out of your sight. He stereotypical in his approach and his demeanor. In three years ive handed over £330 depsite twice showing my permit. His reason.."it wasnt clearly on display"............ grrrrrrrrrrrrr
However,Monday, when i left the pub he'd been kicked to fuck all over the car park and was lying by his van. They'd taken his phone, chucked his keys away and battered him. Ask i walk past he askes me if i can help him? I told him to fuck himself.

I havent read the thread, sorry... too long for my little time.

I think it was awful that you left him... and therefore, to answer your question, no. You were very, very wrong to leave him.

Tosser or not, thats an unkind way to behave.

 

[Dubversion]

I have far more faith in DS's moral code, than those who stick up for criminal clampers and cuss people who disagree.

find me ANYONE who is actually sticking up for a criminal car clamper on this thread. anyone.

if you can't, i'll take this as an admission that you're talking out of your arse.

 

[exosculate]

I'd have helped him - but would have made it clear that it was despite the fact that he was an arse.

 

[Structaural]

I know. Buts got now't to do with how good or bad they are. Its how his actions have affected me over a period of time,and now, how they have affected him.
This is what happends when things get personal, sometimes. People like me who would normally do the right thing find themselves consumed by that basic but overwhelming human emotion, anger. Iv come out the pub, fucking pissed, seen him, the angers kicked in, fuelled by my bellyfull of stella and at that time all that was going in my head was fuck him ! Someone else will come along a second. I am NOT helping him. I despise him.
Im an amateur human. I dont always do the right thing. Does anyone ?

But you have no remorse, you don't think you did the wrong thing. You've pretty much said you'd the same thing again. Anger is not justification for anything.

 

[trashpony]

I keep thinking this thread is about Dirty Santa's dilemma - should he leave his boyfriend now he's become a car clamper.

As you were

 

[Wolveryeti]

A lot of people seem to think that his actions are morally neutral to whether he should be helped. I disagree, and moreover suspect that the people who think that are too hung up on hard-and-fast rules, and who do things because 'it is expected', rather than thinking them through.

 

[Dubversion]

however you dress this up, what DS is essentially motivated by revenge. it may be revenge at a remove, but it's still revenge.

 

[Dubversion]

A lot of people seem to think that his actions are morally neutral to whether he should be helped. I disagree, and moreover suspect that the people who think that are too hung up on hard-and-fast rules, and who do things because 'it is expected', rather than thinking them through.

on the contrary, the more i 'think through' what DS did, the more appalled i am.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Without revenge, the consensus that cooperating with one another is better than the other option is lost. It's like how you can't have good without evil.

 

[Dubversion]

specious nonsense, Dapper.

anyway, where are all these people sticking up for the car clampers?

 

[Structaural]

An interesting ethical comparison is the psychological experiment (can't remember the name at the moment) where one of two kids is given an amount or sweets to divide between them, and if the other agrees they get the stuff, otherwise it's withheld. Young children will refuse a too-small proportion even though it acts against their own immediate interests, suggesting that some degree of social sanction is pretty innate. I wonder if in fact a society where people were treated the same regardless of their behaviour would be as functional as one that operates on more natural, although less 'moral' rules. It's also interesting that the injunction to help, whilst obviously strongly felt by a number of people, isn't enshrined in law in any way.

It's not particularly synonymous though is it?

To help or not help hopefully shouldn't need to be enshrined in law which is why I say it's an ethical consideration. It's basic humanity - even a majority of animals tend to help their own injured species if they can. Whether or not the victim is a jobsworth cunt is neither here nor there.

 

[Wolveryeti]

specious nonsense, Dapper.

anyway, where are all these people sticking up for the car clampers?

Not nonsense as far as I can see. The fear of revenge is a powerful motivation to not fuck people over in the first place, and the threat of revenge is only credible if there is evidence of it being put into action. So revenge isn't a purely evil thing.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's not particularly synonymous though is it?

only in an abstract way, but I think there are parallels

To help or not help hopefully shouldn't need to be enshrined in law which is why I say it's an ethical consideration. It's basic humanity - even a majority of animals tend to help their own injured species if they can. Whether or not the victim is a jobsworth cunt is neither here nor there.

True, but most of the ethical considerations that people hold most dear are enshrined in law. It's at least interesting that this isn't.

 

[Structaural]

only in an abstract way, but I think there are parallels



True, but most of the ethical considerations that people hold most dear are enshrined in law. It's at least interesting that this isn't.

It's interesting, yes

I suppose most of the ones enshrined in law are the ones that act upon or impose upon another person or person's property. Fucking with others choices basically, whereas helping or not helping is purely personal. I think karmically you do pay but that's another discussion