On 2/17/2012 9:02 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 07:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:

I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life.

You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no
obligation to do so.

Hey, it appears you're right. At least here in the good ol' USofA.
Much of the civilized world says I have a 'duty to rescue', but the US
says eh, fuhgeddaboudit.

And that is as it should be. The essence of liberty is that you are
generally free to do as you wish. A society that establishes the
precedent of telling you what you *must* do, as opposed to establishing
a short list of things you *may not* do, is less free and is more likely
to slide into totalitarianism.


U.S. example (includes possible metalworking content!)

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that
after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the
defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the
defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for
damages to the defendant's machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue