NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/01/sezioni/cronaca/slavina-motoslitte/slavina-motoslitte/slavina-motoslitte.html (italian only, sorry)

To sum it up:
11 idiots on motorsleds were driving like crazy 1) out of the allowed paths 2) on fresh and wet snow in a valley 3) in an area known for avalanche risks 4) with reports of impending avalanche risk 5) without the ARVA radio-transmitter (sort of personal transponder you should wear if you venture in areas subject to avalanche risk).

Of course, an avalanche falls, triggered by the noise of the idiots' motors, and submerges them. Total, 4 dead, 7 injured. We still don't know if there were other people in the area - looks like, luckily, there weren't, but, if some other people had been there too
50 people of the alpine rescue service have had to work all night, risking to be hit by another avalanche, to save the idiots.

This makes me think:
-ok, if you can save someone without getting injured (or risking death) yourself you have to.
-on the other hand, the idiots were really looking for it: you don't go PLAYING with a motorsled under a huge mass of fresh, wet snow.
-so we risked the lives of a whole bunch of people of the rescue teams to save some idiots who should have known better.
-the idiots also risked letting loose an avanlanche on other people, not just on themselves, it's only lucky that there was no one else.

So, was attempting to save the idiots morally just? I really wonder. Solidarity between fellow humans is a thing, risking precious lives to save idiots... meh.

I would say that if it is determined that you took an unreasonable risk then you should be charged for the rescue, but determining what an unreasonable risk is and the exact cost of a rescue might be too much of a gray area...

Rescue them. There's just no moral excuse not to.
But then make them pay every least expense of the rescue operation, publicise their names and humiliate them till kingdom come.

I would say that if it is determined that you took an unreasonable risk then you should be charged for the rescue, but determining what an unreasonable risk is and the exact cost of a rescue might be too much of a gray area...

...well, since there were the avalanche risk warnings AND the law forbids going off the allowed paths with motorsleds or skis, I'd say that in this case there is no gray area. Although, in other cases, the gray area is quite vast.

But then make them pay every least expense of the rescue operation, publicise their names and humiliate them till kingdom come.

This is quite a good idea... quite funny, too.:D

...well, since there were the avalanche risk warnings AND the law forbids going off the allowed paths with motorsleds or skis, I'd say that in this case there is no gray area. Although, in other cases, the gray area is quite vast.

You are essentially saying that capital punishment is justified in cases of traffic violations.

There are too many behaviors that can justifiably be deemed foolish performed by too many otherwise smart people to say that any one case indicates that a person is too stupid to live.

If people can be saved, they should be.

The idea that rescue workers had to work means that the rescuees deserve to be punished is a silly one. It's like cops who get annoyed when they are called to investigate something that turns out to be nothing. It's their job.

who says the 50 rescue workers where digging for survivors ;)

I'm all for disclaimers. Post notice that if somebody chooses to 1) go where they are specifically not supposed to go, 2) ignore official warnings about dangers, and 3) neglect to bring along safety equipment or make provisions for protecting themselves, then no rescue attempts will be made if something bad happens to them.

The idea that rescue workers had to work means that the rescuees deserve to be punished is a silly one. It's like cops who get annoyed when they are called to investigate something that turns out to be nothing. It's their job.

Calling the cops to investigate something that turns out to be nothing is in fact illegal and you can be prosecuted for that.

And don't get me wrong, I believe stupidity with intention ought be treated the same in all cases, wether it's endangering oneself and others by causing avalanches in clearly marked and zoned of areas for no other reason than "fun", or driving drunk, or making prank calls to the emergency services. It's stupid, it's dangerous, and the person in question deserves every bit of ostracism that society can muster.

So, was attempting to save the idiots morally just? I really wonder. Solidarity between fellow humans is a thing, risking precious lives to save idiots... meh.

Saving them was fine.
Suiing them for manslaughter would also be fine.

Well, if you think that you have to save people, then there is a question. Do you have a duty to save someone who is trying to commit suicide? Is there such a thing as involuntary suicide that still doesn't translate into this duty? Where is the switch-over?

I can't answer these things, since I take the easy way out: you rescue them because you want to see them live, or because they give you money for it. If neither applies, don't bother.

I can't answer these things, since I take the easy way out: you rescue them because you want to see them live, or because they give you money for it. If neither applies, don't bother.

what if after saving them you find out they have no money to pay you :p

what if after saving them you find out they have no money to pay you :p

Have their wages confiscated ?

Have their wages confiscated ?

I was thinking more along the lines of burying them naked in the snow and selling their clothes for the hassle...

but your idea is nice too, perhaps we could combine the two ideas and turn them into mutant snowmen who serve your every bidding?

Treat the idiots like anyone else in danger. If its too dangerous, then don't rescue them, but if not, even the fac that they brought this on themselves is no excuse to treat them like any other accident victim.

well if you don't attempt to rescue people there's no point in pretending you have civilization. so that's really the moral implication.

i think people should be allowed to get themselves into trouble, but only with the understanding they are doing so at their own risk, and they can't really reasonably expect everyone else to risk themselves to bail them out, and they certainly have no right to risk anyone who doesn't voluntarily risk themselves with that same understanding.

so i don't think anyone, other then a government, which is a special case, out to be penalized or criticized for not putting themselves at risk for someone else who has gotten themselves into a situation by putting themselves at risk voluntarily.

people CAN get THEMSELVES out of situations they get themselves into, usually, if they don't panic and arn't arbitrarily prevented from being able to.

you can't idiot proof the world. we haven't yet protected our planet from our collective self destructiveness of short sighted economic 'gain'.

so yes, we have to do what we can, when situations arise, but we don't have to beat ourselves over the head for what we can't always do to protect everyone from themselves.

=^^=
.../\...

Calling the cops to investigate something that turns out to be nothing is in fact illegal and you can be prosecuted for that.

No, calling the cops for something you know is nothing is illegal. Calling them for something that turns out to be nothing is what they're there for. If you call the cops and tell them someone is trying to break in through your window and it turns out that a tree limb was dangling close to your house and the wind was knocking it into your window, you have not committed a crime. You will probably feel silly, but it's the cops job to check those things out in case the noise does turn out to be a criminal, or even a wild animal.

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/01/sezioni/cronaca/slavina-motoslitte/slavina-motoslitte/slavina-motoslitte.html (italian only, sorry)

Dang. Well, google found several articles, but there's not much in the way of details: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=BRESCIA+avalanche&spell=1

So, was attempting to save the idiots morally just? I really wonder. Solidarity between fellow humans is a thing, risking precious lives to save idiots... meh.

It depends. This reminds me of certain suggestions for wilderness areas laid out by Edward Abbey in Desert Solitaire regarding how the National Park system ought to be managed. One was no backcountry rescues.

Rescue them. There's just no moral excuse not to.
But then make them pay every least expense of the rescue operation, publicise their names and humiliate them till kingdom come.

There are valid moral reasons not to, for example when doing so places others at unreasonable risk.

You are essentially saying that capital punishment is justified in cases of traffic violations.

Nope, there's a huge difference between a valid negative action (not risking my life to save you) and a positive action (capital punishment).

There are too many behaviors that can justifiably be deemed foolish performed by too many otherwise smart people to say that any one case indicates that a person is too stupid to live.

If people can be saved, they should be.

The idea that rescue workers had to work means that the rescuees deserve to be punished is a silly one. It's like cops who get annoyed when they are called to investigate something that turns out to be nothing. It's their job.

The faults of that have already been pointed out. However, it's something of a red herring. An accurate comparison would be firefighters and a burning building taht has become too dangerous to enter. Do you really believe that someone should be sent to a certain death if someone else, who has voluntarily placed themselves in harms way, can possibly be rescued?

I'm all for disclaimers. Post notice that if somebody chooses to 1) go where they are specifically not supposed to go, 2) ignore official warnings about dangers, and 3) neglect to bring along safety equipment or make provisions for protecting themselves, then no rescue attempts will be made if something bad happens to them.

I'm more or less agreed.