Do you think person B has a responsiblity to person A in each situation?
1-A falls of B's roof while mending it.
2-B walks by A, who is homeless and begging on the street.
3-B lends A his car, which has faulty brakes, and A has an accident.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
In the first one, I do not believe B has a responsiblity to A. A should not be completely dismissive of the problem, but it is not B's responsibilty unless B has some connection to the problem. A could have fallen of A's own roof while he was mending it.
This second one is difficult. It evaluates one's own outlook on how they view society. I would not say that B has a responsibilty towards A, but that they should in some way try to help them out because of their own kind heart.
The third one is difficult as well. I do think B has a responsibilty towards A if B did not tell A about the faulty break. If B did tell A about the faulty break, then I do not think B has a responsibility.
All of these situations can really be taken both ways.
1. A has fallen off B's roof while mending it meaning B should be responsible for having put him up there in the first place. However A could be responsible also because they didn't have to take the job in the first place.
2. B, who walks past A who is homeless and begging on the street, does not have responsibility over the situation because it's simply not his problem. However B can be at fault because he didn't even bother to help A and was selfish
3. Frankly both A and B are at fault. It's B's car so he should have at least checked that everything worked before lending it to a friend of his but A also should have checked the car just in case
In case 1, person B does not have a responsibilty towards person A. It might be B's roof, but A was mending B's roof and it was his own fault for falling off in the first place. This doesn't mean B can't be a good friend and help A, but truthfully, it is A's own clumsiness that causes him to fall off.
In case 2, B is not responsible for A's wellbeing. He can be a kind person and donate money to A, but ultimately, it is not his priority to help B.
In case 3, B should have checked his car before lending it to A. But it wasn't totally B's fault, especially if he didn't know the car had any problems. They both should have checked the brakes before A borrowed it.
In case 1, person B does not have responsibility towards person A because person A fell of the roof because of his own actions and he was the one who decided to get on the roof in the first place. Person B does not have control over person A's choices so he should not be held accountable.
The second case involves moral responsibility. Person B does not have an physical obligation/responsibilty for person A, but if Person B has a conscience he will realize that he could very well be in that situation himself and decide to help out Person A who is in need. Person B definitely should, but is not physically obligated.
In the third situation, Person B does not have any responsibilty for this unless he had knowledge of the faulty brakes and did not bring this to the awareness of Person A.
In the first situation, person B does not have a responsibility to person A, because person B has no way to prevent person A from falling off of the roof. Person A chose to be up on the roof, which involves a risk of injury. The only responsibility of person B is to help person A, which is likewise a responsibility of any bystander.
In the second scenario, person B has no direct responsibility to person A, because it is not person B's duty to provide or care for person A. Though it is not B's actual responsibility, he or she might feel personally obligated to help in some way.
In the final situation, B is some what responsible for person A's well being. If A had been in an accident because of his own mistakes, person B would not be held responsible. Like wise, if person B had made person A aware of the brake problem, and A had taken the car regardless, then person B is not responsible. If B knowingly lends the car with faulty brakes to person A, who is unaware of the problem, then person B is absolutely responsible.
The first one, I don't think B has a responsiblity to A.Because if A knows that the roof is being mending,then A shouldn't go up to the roof.A falling off the roof,B has no responsiblity for that.
The second one, I don't think B has a responsibility to A either. Of course B could help A by giving A some money or do something good for A.But, B is no responsiblity for A, except for B wants to help A.
The third one, I think B has a responsibility to A. Because when B lends his car to A, B should tell A that his car has faulty brakes,then A won't has accident.
In the first, I believe it is B's fault for not mending his own roof and getting A to do it for him. B is obviously too lazy (unless he is somehow incapable of doing i.e. back problems, or handicapped).If A did not have to mend the roof for B, A wouldn't have fallen off.
In the second, B doesnt have any direct responsibility to A, unless B is the reason that A is homeless. Other than that, it is A's fault for being homeless and begging on the street.
In the third situation, It is completely B's fault. B did not tell A that the car had faulty brakes. A would not have gotten in an accident if B had fessed up.
In the first, I believe it is B's fault for not mending his own roof and getting A to do it for him. B is obviously too lazy (unless he is somehow incapable of doing i.e. back problems, or handicapped).If A did not have to mend the roof for B, A wouldn't have fallen off.
In the second, B doesnt have any direct responsibility to A, unless B is the reason that A is homeless. Other than that, it is A's fault for being homeless and begging on the street.
In the third situation, It is completely B's fault. B did not tell A that the car had faulty brakes. A would not have gotten in an accident if B had fessed up.
1) B has responsibility for A because B should have told A the dangers of mending on the roof so he would not end up hurt. Also, if B was watching A moves, he would see the danger spots and warn him.
2) It is not B's responsibility the A is homeless. That's A responsibility! It's a nice gesture to give a homeless money, but B does not have to. A still has the energy and intelligence to apply for a job across the alley way!
3) If B knew that the brakes were not working properly and DID NOT TELL A about it, that is %110 B's responsibility. Usually, when the brakes are not working properly, it would show signs and feels of it, before a major accident happens. So B would have known. Brakes like those don't exactly happen right away.
I don’t think that B has a responsibility to any of the situations. It is not B’s fault that A fell off his roof while mending it. For all we know A could have staged the whole thing just to get B to take responsibility. Even if A is a homeless beggar, B should not have to take responsibility for a guy who lost everything on his own accord. If B wants to help he can but he is not obligated to do so. A could be trying to gather money for drugs or gambling for all B knows. It is A fault for driving a car with faulty breaks. I am sure that A would have known that the breaks did not work when he pulled out of the driveway. B would not have known that the breaks were faulty and therefore alleviate him of any guilt and responsibility that could befall him.
1. That is person A's fault. A chose to go on the roof, therefore A is responsible.
2. This is also A's fault. A could be out trying to get a job or doing something with its life, but is not, just begging for something good to happen.
3. This is neither. It's the car, neither person had anything to do with it. Neither should blame each other.
1. While B does not directly have a responsibility to A, I still think B should try to help A if possible. It sort of depends on whether B hired A to mend his roof for him or if A was just being a creeper up there on B's roof.
2. Like the first, I don't believe that B has a responsibility to A, but I believe that he could try to help. This may again depend on the situation. B should probably not give money to A, because B really doesn't know what A is actually going to do with the money. What B should do is buy A a hamburger; then, B will know that A didn't use the money to buy drugs.
3. B definately has a responsibility to A, because B should've known better than to lend A the car when B knew it had faulty brakes. Even if B didn't know about the brakes, B still has a responsibility to A because it was B's faulty brakes that caused A to wreak.
1.) I do not believe that B had responsibility of A because it could have easily been B’s fault. This situation could not have been helped.
2.) This one was also that B had no responsibility of A. This one can go both ways because some believe that A should be helped while others believe differently.
3.) B has more of a responsibility to A because he should have known the condition of his car. But it also could not have been his fault because the brakes could have easily become faulty then and there.
In Case one, B has no responsibility to A falling off the roof. It is B's fault for falling not A's, unless A had direct contact with B's issue.
In Case two, again it is A's fault for being homeless, and it depends on your morals if you would stop and what kind of person you are.
In Case three, it is B's fault for giving A the faulty car, and for the accident.
1- In the first situation I believe that it is most definately not B's fault that A fell off his roof. B had no control over A falling off his roof so B has no responsibilty there.
2- A put himself in the situation of a beggar and thus B owes him nothing. B can kindly give what he chooses to A but he owes nothing to A because its not his responsibility that A is there.
3- In this situation it is B's fault that A got in an accident b/c he lent a car w/ faulty breaks, now if he didn't know it had faulty breaks then he would not be responsible and nobody would be at fault.
1) B has no responsibility to A because A took the job of his own free will. As Morpheus stated, A could have staged the accident in order to sue B.
2) B is not responsible for A's laziness. If A had any initiative, he would either get a job or, if he could not get one, bash B over the head with an improvised weapon and steal all of his money. B also would not know if A was truly homeless as there have been many cases where a person would act homeless and beg for money until around 5 PM and then would have someone bring his $50,000+ car to him.
3) A is responsible for two reasons. First, he should have inspected the car before he borrowed it. In truth, he should never have borrowed a car in the first place. He should have gotten a job and bought a car, even if he had to take out a loan.
In each situation, B. has no responsibility to A. (or any other letter of the alphabet. Ok, that was a stupid joke) B. might feel remorse or guilt for A.’s situation, but if A. and B. are equals, then there is really nobody to blame. But I see where this question is going- Victor feels it is his fault that the creature has killed people. In that situation, it WOULD be Victor’s liability because he was the monster’s creator and did not think through the repercussions of building a monster.
1. In this situation B does not have any responsibility towards A. It was not his fault, it only happened on land owned by B. B should stay informed as to A's condition, but is not required to do more.
2. B does not have any responsibility to A. If they have the time and resources they may want to inform A of some possible ways in which to improve his condition, but B should never simply give A everything he needs without working for it. It is A's fault that he failed to use his potential and is at fault for his own condition.
3. This situation needs additional information for an accurate answer to be formed. If B was aware of the problem but failed to tell A then it is his fault. If B told A and A still chose to use the car, then it is A's fault. If they were both ignorant of the problem, B is probably stupid, but neither of them is at fault.
Post a Comment