Serious Would you save your bully?

[Death Phenomeno]

Due to an incident in which one of my nieces was indirectly involved, I'd like to know the opinion of everyone on this matter.

Hide

According to my niece, who is 12, so some details might be exaggerated/inaccurate, this is what happened:

Three months ago, give or take, my niece's group from school (around 30 kids) was in a birthday party. Everyone was invited, including for some reason the group bully. Everything was normal as far as kid parties can be, until the bully started making trouble.

Now, half the kids were in the pool, and the other half were eating somewhere else in the house. The bully started shoving people into the pool, but for some reason, he slipped and fell into it.

Turns out, the bully couldn't swim.

Everyone who was in the pool got out, and left. My niece says that after that, she ran and told an adult what had happened. Said adult jumped into the pool and saved the bully. After some phone calls, the bully's mother arrived and took him away, apparently without even saying thanks.

After that, the bully never returned to the school. My niece says that nobody knows what happened to him.

So, imagine this. Your bully, the person who makes your life hell, is in grave danger. What do you do? Do you save him/her? Do you leave and let him/her die? Do you tell someone else to see if that person saves him/her? Do you sit and watch him/her die?

This might sound horrifying, but if half a group of ~12 year olds could simply say "good riddance" or "he deserved it" and leave someone else to drown (which is a horrible death, no matter how you look at it)… On the other hand, some bullies are much, much worse than others, and we don't have all the details.

Which leads me to another subject. Since obviously each person is different, what would be your "breaking" point? What would your bully have to do so that you leave that person to die?

NOTE: If you for some reason can't relate to bullying, please don't post.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

It really depends on the degree of bullying involved honestly, if it is just some asses that call me names, yeah sure. But a personal tormentor that ruins my day every day of my life, I might let them go, and I really don't blame anyone else that would. Personally I have only had a few people that were that awful to me, so this seems like more of an exception rather than the rule.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

if it's in your power to save a human life you probably would

it's really hard to be a judge of when you wouldn't, but i suppose if the bully continued his ways even after being saved you would regret it lol

 

[Mack the Knife]

I don't know... I'd like to say I'd save him, but I'm not sure... I honestly would have no idea unless I was put in that situation. I'm pretty sure almost nobody knows what they would do unless they were in that situation.

 

[blarajan]

If I was being bullied? I'd probably save him. But if it was the people who bullied my sister into depression? If I ever saw them, I would kill them myself.

 

[verbatim]

Why is this a question? Leaving someone to die is unfathomable, identity regardless.

 

[RODAN]

a life is a life, if you willingly let someone die out of pure spite then a) the bully mustve psychologically tortured you OR b) you have some sort of mental deficit

im not trying to sound rude but whatever

 

[Mack the Knife]

Why is this a question? Leaving someone to die is unfathomable, identity regardless.

I'd like to think so as well. I hope if I was in the situation I'd be as logical as you are know, but the reason I doubted what I'd do is because sometimes when feeling hate towards someone you are able to forget they're a person. Also, I've never really been bullied to a large extent, so I've never truly hated someone I've met so that is another reason i'm not sure

 

[Eagle4]

Yeah, I can relate to this. Bullying is something that I despise, but I won't go and let the bully(ies) in question die over what they've done to me in the past. If you do that, you're losing the moral high-ground and becoming worse than the bully from a moral standpoint. Nobody deserves to die just for being a bully; the guy might have issues at home, have a mental condition,etc. I welcome this thread though, despite believing that most, if not all the people here would save a bully from dying.

 

[KnightoftheWind]

If you let someone die because they were an asshole to you, you're the biggest asshole of them all.

 

[blarajan]

Yeah, I can relate to this. Bullying is something that I despise, but I won't go and let the bully(ies) in question die over what they've done to me in the past. If you do that, you're losing the moral high-ground and becoming worse than the bully from a moral standpoint. Nobody deserves to die just for being a bully; the guy might have issues at home, have a mental condition,etc. I welcome this thread though, despite believing that most, if not all the people here would save a bully from dying.

Morally, I disagree. I do not personally believe I have a moral obligation to save anyone in need, a bully included. I agree--you are an asshole at best for leaving someone to die under most circumstances. However, there is no MORAL obligation for doing so. Such an obligation would require an inherent moral obligation towards others. I would only be morally wrong for letting an individual die if I had created an obligation to save him (like a lifeguard ignoring a drowning man). In the case of a bully (or anyone else you may see dying), I would only be morally obligated to save their lives if I am inherently morally obligated towards everyone, as I had not in any way created a moral contract in which saving them is my duty.

Saving someone you had not created a moral obligation to save is a supererogatory action. Letting someone die you had created a moral obligation to save is a violation of your moral duty. Letting a bully die if you were not obligated to save him is not a violation of your moral duty. You're probably an asshole, though.

 

[jumpluff]

I'd like to think I would. Saying this as someone who was bullied so severely from kindergarten until the day I dropped out of school. I stopped attending school because I'd break down crying and have panic attacks the moment we turned the corner towards school. Admittedly, I've never been beaten, although I've had a number of physical things done to me. Also admittedly, I left school four years ago or so and have had a lot happen in my life since then, so I have mostly moved on, although being bullied a lot has a lot of impact on most people growing up in some way. I believe it is because I have been bullied by so many different people that I don't hold a grudge against one specific person. There's only one bully I ever really hated, and I eventually moved on from that after I left that school. When so many people treat you badly they just blur into one another. It's hard to be everyone's nemesis.

I also think it would be immensely difficult to live with the burden of leaving someone to die. Bullying isn't a joke, many young people commit suicide over it. But intentionally leaving someone to die out of spite seems to be on another scale that would change you as a person. I don't think that feeling of vindication could overcome how sad that death would be for the people who loved that person.

Knowing you could have saved someone, maybe they would have become a better person -- something I always held onto as I grew up was the hope that many of the people who made my life so shitty would change. If you save them, maybe they'll go back to being the same shitty and somewhat compassionless person they were, it's not an anime where kindness will always prevail (although some people really do need friendship, bullying often starts at home). I remember when I went to the police (long story, my school directed me there because the person I alluded to before did something they considered quite severe) and the officer told me they already knew that person, their siblings were all criminals, bad family, they were probably headed the same way, etc.

I think most people are ashamed of something about who they were, say, ten years ago, five years ago, be it a prejudice, something cruel they did to another kid, they were bullies themselves, etc., see any Smogon thread about the worst thing you've ever done for anecdotes. But given the time to grow, they changed in some way.

You don't have to save someone who's dying. You can just stand by, and not change anything. But if you can help them out, it's generally a good thing to do. I don't believe being a bully of all things makes you such a bad person you're beyond redemption or not worth saving.

edit: Rajan raises a good point. I know I operate this way and I think a lot of others do. There are some people of whom we are really protective, and while you have the ability to forgive someone who's done wrong to you, it's much harder to extend forgiveness to someone who wronged that person.

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

i would say that you absolutely have a moral obligation to save something if you have the ability to do so. although i can't argue against your personal moral code blarajan i do think that's a very clear moral violation that should apply to all humans - anyone with basic empathy would feel morally obligated to save a life on principle.

 

[blarajan]

I will create a distinction between not saving someone's life and actively ending it. I'm going to assume we all consider murder to be worse than inaction.

If it is my moral obligation to save someone's life that I am capable of saving, then it follows that by not doing so, I have violated my moral obligations. That is just a natural extension. By this logic, then we must assume that by not saving anyone we are currently capable of saving, we are violating our moral obligations, as we are failing to save a life that we can. If I pass by an individual in a car accident, and I fail to save his life, I have violated my moral obligations. If I fail to rescue an individual who is drowning when I am capable of doing so, I am violating my moral obligations. We must assume that no distinction can be made between the people who I can save, as any arbitrary distinctions as who can be saved is morally unjustifiable.

It follows, then, that proximity to me should not influence who I save. I can just as easily save an individual drowning as I an impoverished individual in another country through donations. Imagine a donation collection where you are 100% sure that the money you donate will be received by the presented target in full. If, say, five dollars saves a live, and I have fifty dollars in my wallet, by refusing to donate this fifty dollars at this collection bin, I have failed to save the lives of ten people, thus leaving me in clear violation of my moral duty. I am capable of saving these people with this investment, but by not doing so, I am in violation of my duty. This can most definitely extend to all of the money in my possession that is not used for immediate needs (ie all leisure money).

By considering it a moral obligation to save everyone I can, I must be inherently morally obligated towards those people, as I said previously. Since there was no contractual situation (like with a lifeguard and pool patrons) binding me to save these people, it must be inherent. Assuming inherent moral obligations exist (and I do not believe they do), then by failing to do the above (donate all of my money), I am failing these obligations and thus failing my duty. Imagine another scenario, in which you are walking to work and on the left and right hand side of the road are a pond each. In each pond is a drowning child. You only have time to save one child. It would be monstrous not to save a child, but by choosing to save a child, you are failing your inherent moral obligation to the other child. If these inherent moral obligations exist, then even by saving a child you are in moral violation.

It is in my opinion that a moral standard that leaves an individual consistently and always in violation of their moral obligations cannot exist. Instead, I consider the act of saving a morally supererogatory action that is good to do, but not evil to not. Just because you are emotionally attached to a situation by viewing an individual drowning does not leave you any less culpable for not saving impoverished individuals from other nations through donations (empathy inspired codes of ethics do not infringe on obligations).

I think being able to watch an individual die in front of your eyes says something about you as a person. But because I do not believe a moral standard can exist that requires you to save someone, I do not believe you are morally obligated to do so. Not saying I wouldn't, though. You're a hero for acting, but not a villain for not acting.

edit: Sorry for the philosophical tangent. I just do not believe it's an obligation as many posters are suggesting.

 

[Lavos]

i would save blarajan if he was drowning but i heard dogs swim pretty well

 

[His Eminence Lord Poppington II]

all of these scenarios involve a bunch of different factors, the OP is asking a hypothetical principle. i was only responding to your post because this - 'I do not personally believe I have a moral obligation to save anyone in need' is pretty dodgy on the moral ground. despite most scenarios involving saving human lives taking a lot of effort and personal sacrifice the principle of it is very cut and dry.

'You're a hero for acting, but not a villain for not acting.'
there are also laws in place that punish a lack of action to help a fellow human being; i'm fairly sure these laws are based on moral principle, like murder.

i dunno man, i see where you're coming from, but i don't think you can say the things i highlighted at all.

 

[Jellicent]

blarajan, I see where you're trying to come from, but shit man.

I am far from believing in an inherent moral code, but your arguments are a bit flawed. In the case of a drowning bully where there are people who you can save him if given the knowledge of the situation, there's no cost for you sharing that information. Do you have to? No. But if you can easily save a life by speaking, for fuck's sake man, why wouldn't you? Philosophy aside, are you trolling on this one?

For the donations thing, sure, if you know the money will all go to the right cause and you have the money to spare, it's a "guess I might as well" kind of thing. Thing is, you don't know for certain where that money is going, you don't know for sure that if it goes there you save a life, and you might not be able to spare it in general. Sure, spending lavishly while you could give to the impoverished is frownable to some, but it's at least at the cost of your own happiness, so I can see where your moral ambiguity gets in the way there.

The two children drowning is probably the worst morality case I've ever seen. Two people are dying, you can only save one, so you do nothing? Either way, someone dies, so you let them both? Scooping a kid out of a pool isn't gonna harm you. Hell, even if you're running late to work, most bosses can get behind "sorry, a child was dying and I stopped it from happening" as a reason for missing 5 minutes.

No, there's not a moral code enforcing you to save everyone you can. Hell, offing yourself and donating organs can save a dozen lives. No one's asking you to do that. That said, if someone's drowning and you can save them by just saying "yo, that guy's drowning", god damn, man, why wouldn't you?

Fuck morality, hands down. Fuck letting someone die when you could've just raised your voice, too, though.

 

[Brambane]

Why is this a question? Leaving someone to die is unfathomable, identity regardless.

Even if it was...

ADOLF HITLER?

 

[Stratos]

jellicent he's basically just saying you're an asshole if you don't and probably fucked in the head but you didn't actually do something /wrong/ per se, its kind of like the guy who literally does nothing except backstab when you're playing Diplomacy.

anyway, were i still in the stage of my life where I was being actively bullied (not like, bunch of friends with the group prick, but no friends and the group of pricks i actively fear to the point of depression) i'd probably save the guy, then the bullying wouldn't let up and i'd wonder why everyone was such an asshole and return to suicidal thoughts. not trying to make light of the scenario, this is legitimately what i figure would happen.

 

[WaterBomb]

Letting someone die because they wronged you or someone close to you is nothing short of taking revenge, which puts you on the same level, if not lower than, the bully themself. Think of it this way: when a life is in danger and you have an opportunity to save it, you are in control of that life. If you choose to let them die you are, in effect, killing them. Is bullying a terrible thing? Yes. Is it bad enough to warrant a death sentence? No.

tl;dr damn right I'd save them, no matter how badly they bullied me (and I was bullied a ton). We are not given the rights to judge life and death ourselves.

 

[Houndoomsday]

We are not given the rights to judge life and death ourselves.

This sums up my feelings as well. I just can't fathom doing that to anyone, walking away from a drowning victim, just to get "revenge".

 

[kd24]

 

[blitzlefan]

The moral obligation argument really doesn't work that well for me. To be honest, if I were to let a bully drown, I wouldn't feel all that bad afterwards. I simply don't feel that sort of emotional obligation; there'd be no sleepless nights or whatever for me.

I think the scenario to me hinges on how much assistance I have to give. If it's as simple as "yo, that's guys drowning", then hell, I might as well do it. I might laugh at them first if they were just a complete ass, but yeah, I'd save their life with such a simple action. However, if saving them presents a danger to my own life (idk like drowning in the ocean or something), then suck and deal, the bully dug their own grave.

 

[sandshrewz]

Moral wise, I'd save that person because I can't just stand there and watch him die ?_? unless that guy has gone overboard and made me unable to think logically when the scenario happens and leave me irrational so I pick spite over moral / reasoning etc.

I'd rather save and regret later than regret not saving a person's life, not matter if that guy was a sucker or what. If they're still a bully after that then, 9.9 they must be the worst people I've ever met but at least I'll life easy. blitzlefan raises an interesting point. If trying to save that person would impose dange on my own life, I'll be less likely to save that person and/or call for help even though the time taken as a result would increase the chances of his death.

Anyway, morals aside, I'd save that person just so I don't regret forever.

e: saving that person won't mean I forgive him though.

Also, posing this question out as well: If you saved the person and he continued to be the usual bully he was, would you save him again if he's going to die again ?

Definitely the chances are you'd be less likely to. But I'm interested if anyone goes from a definite yes to a definite no or something along those lines. I personally would probably be like 'I don't really want to save this person but screw it I will just do that 9.9!'

 

[faint]

Rodan and verbatim summed up my thoughts pretty well. If I knew I had the ability to save someone's life when no one else could, of course I would. I don't care what this person did to me. Letting them die would be far worse than anything they could have done to me. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself knowing that I was the only person capable of saving them and I chose otherwise.

I watch TED talks in my spare time and a quick look through my YT likes led me to these. Both are somewhat relevant to this topic but are great talks on their own.

Hide