The good Samaritan

[DarkProphet]

In the story of the good Samaritan did the people who passed before the good Samaritan have any ethical obligation to help the man in the road? Would we have any ethical obligation to a parallel situation today?

 

[lisah]

I think a physician would have an ethical, and possibly a legal, obligation.

I'm not so certain this is what the story was about though. I think it was more about how the Jews (and others?) looked down upon the Samaritan's, yet Jesus threw that in their faces by making the two "equal" as human beings. In order to do that he had to raise that particular Samaritan up.

I actually think it can be viewed as an example of a non-beliver having even higher standards than some believers. An atheist can have as high morals as a Jew, a Christian, etc. And even higher.

I think it levels the playing field an awful lot.

But, many may see it differently, and I look forward to some responses regarding this topic.

 

[tansy]

In the story of the good Samaritan did the people who passed before the good Samaritan have any ethical obligation to help the man in the road? Would we have any ethical obligation to a parallel situation today?

I should have thought there is always an ethical obligation to help anyone in need, as far as one is able to. In this situation today, the very least one could do would be phone an ambulance and the police.

From a Christian point of view, one would be more likely to be helping out of love, than merely for the sake of ethical obligations.

 

[BobW188]

Put it this way, they had good alibis. We're told the victim was "left for dead," and for either a priest or a Levite to touch him to check would, if he were in fact dead, render them "unclean" and unable to perform their duties for a period of, if I recall rightly, two weeks or so. (In all fairness, how many of us here could cruise through fourteen unpaid days; and a probable reprimand for knowingly violating a "work rule?")

I think He would not mind if I paraphrased Him. What the priest, the Levite and a good many Jews didn't see is that the Law is made for us; we are not made for the law. As He showed us, it is proper to heal on the sabbath. It would have been proper for the priest and Levite to act. A law that prevents them defeats the purpose of the greatest commandment, to love god, and our neighbors as ourselves.

Were he speaking to us today, the samaritan might be The Good Islamic Fundamentalist, The Good Gay Activist ... perhaps even the Good Republican or Democrat, whatever would give the listener's chain the strongest tug.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Good Samaritans are spoken of in good terms, because there are so few of them today. Most people today, are not of the mindset to help others in need; they feel that their family and they should come first. Most Samaritans don't brag about their deeds and it's hardly ever seen anyways.

I think however if more people would adopt the philosophy of others first and themselves last, the world might be a better place.

 

[Verv]

In the story of the good Samaritan did the people who passed before the good Samaritan have any ethical obligation to help the man in the road? Would we have any ethical obligation to a parallel situation today?

I think we do have the same obligation and the only thing that should prevent us if we are aware of a potential danger that exists, e.g. in this area people who have been helping stranded folks with their cars have been getting robbed.


But yes, just like the US has a moral obligation to help other countries who are less fortunate, so does the Christian.

The Christian calling is even more urgent.

 

[Axioma]

As Bob pointed out, what is generally missing from modern retellings of the parable is that Samaritans were widely despised at the time, so the idea of one helping you when you were in need had a little more power than the tame version where Samaritan has become associated with good.

 

[Beanieboy]

I think a physician would have an ethical, and possibly a legal, obligation.

I'm not so certain this is what the story was about though. I think it was more about how the Jews (and others?) looked down upon the Samaritan's, yet Jesus threw that in their faces by making the two "equal" as human beings. In order to do that he had to raise that particular Samaritan up.

I actually think it can be viewed as an example of a non-beliver having even higher standards than some believers. An atheist can have as high morals as a Jew, a Christian, etc. And even higher.

I think it levels the playing field an awful lot.

But, many may see it differently, and I look forward to some responses regarding this topic.

This was exactly the point. The priest and the Levite passed the man over. The priest was unable to dirty himself before going into the Temple, according to the law, yet, held the law over love, and passed over the beaten man.

Samaritans were thought of as being below the "sinners" (tax collectors and prostitutes), and people were shocked when Jesus said that the Samaritan was the one that who loved his neighbor. In response, they wanted to know who was their neighbor - specifically, who were they called to love? You neighbor is whomever is near you.

Jesus told a parable about the Pharisee who went into the Temple, praised God for making him so holy, that he tithed, when to Temple, wasn't like other people, not stealing, committing adultery, or like the tax collector over there, who humbled himself before God, and asked for his mercy. Ironically, the tax collector was justified, and the Pharisee, who was not "the sinner" was not. He acted as though he had won God's favor, as if he deserved his love, ignored God's grace and mercy, taking credit for it himself. He loved himself, not God.

It's interesting how many times this message is repeated by Christ, and can still be applied today.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In the story of the good Samaritan did the people who passed before the good Samaritan have any ethical obligation to help the man in the road? Would we have any ethical obligation to a parallel situation today?

How would you define "ethical obligation"? I'd feel obliged to help, given that it was within my power to do so. And I'd assume that most non-sociopaths would feel similarly about it.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

The priest was unable to dirty himself before a service

(Paraphrased)

These days it is much easier to help though, (All you have to do is type in three numbers) and therefore everybody should have an obligation. Even those with excuses or places they have to be.

 

[Beanieboy]

Agreed. You also probably aren't going to pay for a room for them in a place to recover. You call 911, and it's not that much to do, so it's probably worse to not do anything.

 

[lisah]

(Paraphrased)

These days it is much easier to help though, (All you have to do is type in three numbers) and therefore everybody should have an obligation. Even those with excuses or places they have to be.

I don't know about anyone else, but does the thought cross your mind that you could be hit with a lawsuit if your help is not medically accurate? I would not dare to move someone who was injured these days and would phone for an emergency professional.

People today are just so unpredictable. (Maybe I'm just paranoid?)

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't know about anyone else, but does the thought cross your mind that you could be hit with a lawsuit if your help is not medically accurate? I would not dare to move someone who was injured these days and would phone for an emergency professional.

People today are just so unpredictable. (Maybe I'm just paranoid?)

Aren't you protected by the Samaritan Act, and punished for not helping (as what happened on the finale of Seinfeld?)

 

[lisah]

Good Samaritans are spoken of in good terms, because there are so few of them today. Most people today, are not of the mindset to help others in need; they feel that their family and they should come first. Most Samaritans don't brag about their deeds and it's hardly ever seen anyways.

I think however if more people would adopt the philosophy of others first and themselves last, the world might be a better place.

I'm uncertain about the "others first" philosophy. I lived quite a few years as one who put their self last. Eventually I felt buried in it and I lost all sense of myself. It has taken me years to rediscover myself. (Or, maybe I should use the word "reinvent" instead?)

I think that a balance must be found in order to give to others and to give to oneself. That makes people happier, I think.

 

[lisah]

Aren't you protected by the Samaritan Act, and punished for not helping (as what happened on the finale of Seinfeld?)

I don't know. That's the first I've actually heard of that. I'll check it out.

Thanks,

 

[tansy]

I don't know about anyone else, but does the thought cross your mind that you could be hit with a lawsuit if your help is not medically accurate? I would not dare to move someone who was injured these days and would phone for an emergency professional.

People today are just so unpredictable. (Maybe I'm just paranoid?)

Well, no, of course one would only help as far as one were able - in those days of course one couldn't make emergency phone calls, and I don't suppose there was any bambulance service .

 

[Nihilismus]

From a Christian point of view, one would be more likely to be helping out of love, than merely for the sake of ethical obligations.

This made me choke on my tea.

 

[Verv]

As Bob pointed out, what is generally missing from modern retellings of the parable is that Samaritans were widely despised at the time, so the idea of one helping you when you were in need had a little more power than the tame version where Samaritan has become associated with good.

That was nice of you to point out.

I will add this to my arsenal of anecdotes.

If it proves that you are wrong, later, ad that this is not true... I will walk by you when you are suffering on the road.

J/K.

 

[tansy]

This made me choke on my tea.

So sorry...I'll try not to do that in future! At least you know that were you to choke, I would at least ring the ambulance, whether it was merely from ethical obligation or whether it was from love.

 

[keith99]

Aren't you protected by the Samaritan Act, and punished for not helping (as what happened on the finale of Seinfeld?)

Definete no to the second. Except for Alaska there is no legal requirement to render aid. And even in Alaska all yuo need to do si say the indivdual scared you and you are off.

Many states have good Samaritan acts, but there is a current lawsuit where someone is trying to strip the protections.