Should people risk their own lives just to save others when they have been warned about the dangers beforehand? I disagree completely. The people that are putting themselves at risk after they have been warned, should not be saved. They should not do it if they have been informed about it previously. The people that do that are foolish and should not be rescued. They should only be saved if it was an accident or not intentional. First of all, if they do not listen to warnings, it is their fault. If you tell someone the dangers beforehand, it is their life that they are risking. You are doing the right thing by telling them the consequences. The other person’s decision will decide what will happen to them. Making other people help you will only end up getting them killed also. If people attempt to save you, and if they get hurt, who will rescue them? This is the side that people should choose. Therefore, if someone tries to save you, they will risk getting into a helicopter crash. It is the other person’s fault if they decide to do something dangerous. Their life is in their own hands. When someone endeavors to save somebody else, they have guts because they put their lives in endangerment too. What if the person that attempts to salvage someone else gets incapacitated, who will rescue them? The person that tries to rescue them might get killed. …show more content…
Someone might like the feel of doing something scary or dangerous. They may like jumping from something high up and the sensation of the wind blowing through their hair and face. Death possibly will not arise to mind if they feel free and like doing it. Others may think that if somebody does something hazardous and they are fine, they might believe that they can do it too without getting killed or hurt. Sometimes it does not work that way, and something could perchance occur. That just substantiates that there are some stupid and imprudent people in this
For every year, there will be six mountain climbers who will succumb to the harsh climb of Everest, and that’s about seventeen times the rate of death caused by skiing and snowboarding accidents together all around the world. Mountain climbing, skiing, and snowboarding are all adventurous and hard-to-participate sports. But why are there so many deaths created by mountain climbing? And in all of those deaths there are about fifteen guides, and mountain rangers, most of them died to help the injured climbers. However, there are more than four thousands successful climbs made by varieties of people from young to old. So should people have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk? To me, people absolutely do have the right to rescue services when they put themselves at risk because that is what rescue services are for, to help people when they need it. And it also depends on their current situation, which may affect their abilities to make a decision.
Why should we risk the lives of innocent mountain rangers to save those who put themselves in a life or death situation? Many mountain rangers risk their lives every day to rescue, mountain climbers who chose to put their lives in danger. This is very serious because, there have been many deaths of both mountain rangers and climbers during these rescue missions. That’s why mountain climbers shouldn’t be able to demand rescue services. The main reasons for this are because, it would involve putting more than one live in danger, the mountain climbers are the ones who took the risk, and with so many people climbing mountains a helicopter could easily crash.
“It just barely missed me, but in my place it swallowed everything that mattered most to me and swept it off to another world. I took years to find it again and to recover from the experience-precious years that can never be replaced” (133). Individuals who find themselves in life or death situations experience a spectrum of factors that play into the aftermath, including, mental, moral, and costly forms of accountability. The decisions individuals are forced to make in order to survive is what causes this accountability. Therefore, individuals should not be held responsible for their decisions when in survival situations.
Morality can be separated into many entities, one of which being one’s willingness to personally sacrifice for someone else. One’s own mind may factor into one’s decision when put in a difficult situation, a situation as extreme as putting your own well-being on the line for someone else’s. Many people, when asked if they would help others at nearly any cost, would automatically answer yes; however, when faced with this type of hardship, one, more often than not, does what is in their self-interest. That, however, does not define whether one should help others or not. One is morally obligated to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of another’s.
Some people think that individuals should get rescued even thought they put themselves at risk. They say that rescuers signed up for that job, knowing they’ll put their life on the line. However, people shouldn’t die trying to save someone who purposely risk their life. After all, it is the climber’s fault, so their rescuer should have to die because of their faults.
It has been long debated whether genetics or the environment in which one is raised impacts human psychological development the most. In Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro shows that nurture cannot overcome one’s hereditary inclinations. Ishiguro exploits a world where human nature powerfully contradicts nurturing. He shows us that people, no matter how they were created or how they were raised, desire to be loved and accepted and need to know where they came from and what their future possibilities are.
Logically, if everyone thinks like this, no helpful actions will be taken towards the emergency and the consequences could be fatal. This seems to sound a little backwards. It would be fair to say that common sense leads us to believe that there is safety in numbers. However, through research and to this phenomenon in our society, the proof of this definition is all too real and quite shocking. John Darley and Bibb Latane revealed that the amount of time a participant takes to initiate action and seek aid varies in accordance to the number of observers present in the room (Hudson and Bruckman 175). There are numerous explanations for the bystander effect, although social psychologists have placed emphasis on two explanations: social influence and diffusion of responsibility. This paper discusses the psychology behind the bystander effects and its impacts on society and outlines the Darley and Latane’s theory and the experiments relating to the bystander effect, and will also include and ethical
Several years ago, I was getting out of my vehicle in the busy parking lot where I worked. I slipped on ice, my legs went in opposite directions and I fell hard on my right kneecap. While I was laying on the ice, a man walked up and asked “Are you okay? Do you need help?’ Through my tears, I said yes that I needed help and he just walked away. I eventually found my phone in my purse and called a co-worker who I knew was already inside. Luckily, I worked across the street from the hospital and a member of the rescue squad saw me laying in the parking lot and ran over to help. I was eventually transported to the hospital across the street and found out that I had broken my kneecap. “LaTane and Darley (1970) developed a five-step tree that describes how people decide whether to intervene in an emergency.” (Aronson, Wilson, Akert & Sommers, 2016). The five steps include: (1) Notice the event, (2) Interpret the event as an emergency, (3) Assume responsibility, (4) know appropriate form of assistance, (5) and Implement decision. (Aronson et al., 2016). It was obvious that the first man that asked if I needed assistance noticed me laying on the ground and interpreted the event as an emergency, but is appears that he did not want to assume responsibility. Even though he asked if I was okay and needed help, it seems that he never actually called
Have you ever been in a situation where you had to choose survival over helping someone? Some people have been known to go to great lengths for survival. In Lord Of the Flies, the 9/11,and The Titanic. In those important things people had to choose life or helping someone. So in maybe in danger you all have to choose.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Vogrincic, C., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
Usually, you can only take one person that needs to be rescued, so you can put people in danger by making them wait. People should also make sure they know the right criteria before putting themselves at risk. Lastly, the people rescuing can be in danger and can put themselves at great risk also. People can help by making stronger rescue craft to hold multiple people, and they can also be sure that if you are going on an extensive dangerous trip, that you have received the proper training for it. People can die from trying to rescue people. This is why we should not allow rescue
The topic of hunting has always been filled with controversy, excitement and trepidation for the environment. Both sides have varies ideas as to what is wrong and right. I realize that many people do not understand why people have to hunt or why people do hunt. One of the questions that kept coming to mind is why so many people are against hunting when their ancestors hunted and without hunting many of them would not be alive today. This question is relevant because many people are becoming to be worried that animals are in pain when being hunted and that it is unfair for people to hunt selfless animals with modern weaponry, and with many people going against the right to own guns.
Assuming that someone else would assist the victim, bystanders often don't consider intervening themselves, resulting
Humans are controlled by a strict set of laws in which they are not allowed to explore their darks thought in a legal way. The fact that they cannot let out these thoughts makes them intrigued by things like death and disaster whenever it does happen. “To those who think Cantor's field of study is morbid, he says think again. Death, he says, "is stimulating and thought-provoking" (Hansen). These horrific happenings allow their mind to explore that darkness and when they see it they cannot get enough.
Consequences of Fear Fear is a powerful emotion ever present in the lives of all- and in healthy amounts, it keeps us alive. If we felt no fear of the dangerous, unfamiliar, or different, we could quite easily end up injured or dead. For example, a person afraid of a wild animal can avoid getting hurt by it; When the person kills an innocent animal under the notion that all wild animals are dangerous, however, then that is an example of fear driving people to commit horrible acts for their own safety.