Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

aliveness.kunnas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#31

Post by Apreche »

I know this article is focusing on legal responsibility, but if you are going to consider moral culpability for inaction you must also factor in capability.

If a very weak person does not have the strength to perform CPR, they should not feel guilty for failing to perform it.

You also have to consider the costs involved. Somewhere out there is a homeless person who is going to die in the cold tonight. I’m not vastly wealthy, but I could afford to save them if I dropped everything I was doing, searched for them, and found them in time. It is in my power to save them, but at great personal expense. Therefore, I do not hold myself morally responsible for not doing so.

Now consider the billionaire. By merely uttering the command, the smallest effort, they could feed, house, provide medical care, and educate an enormous number of people in poverty. Remember what Uncle Ben said. With great power comes great responsibility. The blood is on their hands.

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#32

Post by zyngaro »

watwut wrote: post #24
zyngaro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law is specific to situations of imminent or actual physical harm. Also notice the way the law is formulated: non-assistance (negative) and not a an explicit duty to assist (positive).

It is an explicit duty to assist. Calling 112 counts by the way.

That is not the spirit of the law. You are punished for not assisting, but you are not obligated to assist: e.g obligated to call 112.

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#33

Post by jaybrendansmith »

A great essay. I would say this is 'business ethics' for certain. It is not typically personal ethics, nor Christian or Muslim ethics. But this describes better than anything I have read what happens to every corporation, eventually. Bean counters and ombsbudsmen vs operators, day 1 vs day 2, all comes down to this. If you are CEO, you must always side with the operator, the 'man in the arena'. It is difficult to do it but that's what your authority is for. Where this falls into serious trouble is with externalities. For this we still do need strong regulators.

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#34

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

zyngaro wrote: post #32
watwut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an explicit duty to assist. Calling 112 counts by the way.

That is not the spirit of the law. You are punished for not assisting, but you are not obligated to assist: e.g obligated to call 112.

Yes, you are. That's the whole point of the law and what the precedents confirm. You have to assist to the extend of your ability too. If you witness something and don't call 112 (well 18), you are guilty. If you are a medic and don't do your best to stabilize the person, you are guilty to.

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#36

Post by rkomorn »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #16
Svip wrote: post #5

Amusing the title is the "Copenhagen Trap" (I know it's a reference to the Copenhagen Interpretation), since Denmark actually have laws about duty to help. The Danish penal code § 253[1] punishes people with up to 2 years in prison, those who - without high risk to themselves or others - intentionally do not help someone after ability, who is clearly life threatened. Additionally, the Danish rules of the road § 9[2]…

It's the same in France with "Non assistance à personne en danger” literally ”Not helping someone in danger" and the assistance expected is proportional to your immediate ability. A doctor who would not try to help someone injured is liable for example. There are precedents. Weird use of "the West" here.

I remember the first time I heard about this, but it's been such a long time that I don't remember the details.

IIRC, someone drowned, and someone else filmed it on camera instead of helping, and ended up on trial for "non assistance".

I can't seem to dig up the actual story, but I think it was in the mid 90s.

Edit: I think it was the story of Marie-Noëlle Guillerné's drowning.

Re: The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy

#37

Post by ekns »

Author here. Thanks for the corrections.

I revised the essay, my priors were off. Added Good Samaritan data (zero successful CPR lawsuits in 30 years), duty-to-rescue statutes across Europe, and a new section on self-defense showing the trap cuts across Common Law/Civil Law (UK restrictive, Germany/Poland permissive).

Post reply on HN