case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2015-08-25 06:38 pm

[ SECRET POST #3156 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3156 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Spider Riders]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Shameless]


__________________________________________________



05.
[The Mighty Boosh]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Glitch]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Fire Emblem: Awakening]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Kaikisen]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Kingdom Hearts 2]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Yu-Gi-Oh]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 029 secrets from Secret Submission Post #451.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)
No, this logic doesn't follow. I would say I have the moral obligation to save a child from a fire if I see one, but if I fail to do so the one time it doesn't make me a terrible person. I may save the child the next time if it happens. That doesn't mean it wasn't a moral obligation.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Define "not saving the child." Did you try? If yes, you have fulfilled your moral obligation. If not, you have violated your moral obligation and are, indeed a shitty person, made marginally less shitty by trying to save the next child in a fire you see.

And I also think there's a difference between a moral obligation and a nice thing to do. ie: Moral obligations are for the big things. Your break-up scenario? On the grand scale? Peanuts.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow, going to have to disagree on the first part. If you lock up in a panic and can't even try, I hardly think that makes you a shitty person. I think that makes you quite normal really.

But oh, no, I don't disagree that the breakup scenario is peanuts. It is, for sure. But, not everyone considers moral obligations to be big serious things, either. Someone gave the example of cleaning up after yourself in a picnic area below. Some people might consider it a moral obligation to not litter in a public place, others will shrug and say it's no big deal.

Which is why I said in other threads, I suppose it depends on whether anon thinks not being a dick is a moral obligation, because some people would say it is.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 11:27 pm (UTC)(link)
DA

I'm pretty sure that wanting to help the child but locking up in a panic counts as trying to help. Just not actually making it far in the helping.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 11:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I was imagining total lockup, where the person knows intellectually that they should be going but is frozen by fear and such. I wouldn't call that "shitty" - and some people would argue that an untrained random civilian doesn't have the moral obligation to save a child if it puts you in danger - but ehh, that's where subjective morality comes in. :)
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2015-08-26 05:18 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think that's a good example. It's dangerous to go into a fire unless you're a trained firefighter. Not saying nobody ever should but in some cases I'd say the risk it too high.

(Anonymous) 2015-08-25 11:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Just because you can't follow something doesn't mean it doesn't follow.