This House supports Good Samaritan Law should be established

[ - 디베이팅데이 ]



So-called ‘Good Samaritan Law’ has been a hot issue regarding our society’s legal establishment for a long time. This law is essentially about punishing a person who stands by despite his ability to rescue or offer help to others. It carries an excellent meaning in order to fight off the ‘bystander effect’ and growing individualism. However, those who stand on against-side state that individual’s moral cannot be enforced by law, and it would eventually cause a side-effect in moral standard’s downgraded unto the level of ‘not being punished’. Should Good Samaritan Law be established in order to overcome the selfish society?



Good Samarian law(wiki)

Duty to rescue(wiki)

Good Samaritan Doctrine(free dictionary)



NeswOk, ‘Good Samaritan’ law for overdose victims is expected in next Oklahoma legislative session, 8 dec 2015

Aljazeera. Ohio lawmakers argue Good Samaritan law can save addicts’ lives. 21 oct 2015

Roanoke Times. Good Samaritan law takes effect, will protect those who report overdoses to authorities. 30 jun 2015


pros opinion

a. It is absolutely necessary to strengthen social solidarity.
Society has become more and more selfish and therefore it much effort to overcome such problem is absolutely necessary for every member of society. Good Samaritan Law not only punishes those who do not offer help others but also protects those who have helped others. It has two-side meanings so that it is essential in strengthening social solidarity and useful in its effect.

b. Law should protect the least level of social ethics.
‘Bystander effect’, neglecting neighbors’ dangers or avoiding crime scenes, overflows within our society. Moral obligation now has become one of significant values that the law needs to protect. Neglecting and pretending not to see other’s misery is being acknowledged to be wise in this society. It should not be maintained in such way.


cons opinion

a. Good Samaritan Law is an act of overstepping by law over individuals.
Human beings moves according to one’s own conscience. Issues regarding one’s own conscience is his own responsibility, and it cannot be changed by society’s enforcement or power. If pushed by introducing a law with seemingly reasonable intention, making a precedent of ‘Human being’s conscience can be enforced by law’ can bring a bigger issue than we ever imagine.

b. Unclear standard increases the possibility of misuse or misinterpretation.
Unclear legal standards can make anybody a criminal. Unclear bases regarding whether it should be protected or not can cause numerous misuse or misinterpretations of law. It should not be approached from an emotional standing.



Bible Gateway, Luke 10:25-37


착한 사마리아인 법은 제정되어야 하나


  1. 소피스트의 프로필추천댓글
    Lv4 소피스트 님의 의견 - 5년 전

    선한 사마리아인법은 인간의 인권을 바탕으로 만들어진 것이다. 그런데 만약 지금의 현대와 같이 사람들의 이기적인 마음과 악의적인 마음으로 제정된 법안만이 인정을 받는다면 우리 세계는 더욱 참혹해 질 것이다. 애초에 법을 제정하는 이유가 모두의 인권이 보장 받으며 동등한 위치를 제공하자는 취지에서 만들어진 것인데 다른 소수의 이익만을 위한 법은 추진하면서 이런 참된 법을 지정하지 않는다면 그것이야 말로 진정한 모순이다.

    1 1 답글
    • selenak의 프로필
      Lv1 selenak 님의 의견 - 5년 전

      it is immoral not to help and assist a person who is injured or in danger, unless doing so endangers your own safety.  yes, law is different from moral values of people , but it often reflects them because there is a common ground between the two. the moral duty Samaritan law try to impose on individuals is reasonable because it doesn’t damage any legitimate rights of an individual and it would forster pro social value like solidarity which would benefit all members of the society. only sociopaths would try to protect their ‘ individual right to be immoral’ imo

      0 0
  2. ijinyu1114의 프로필
    Lv1 ijinyu1114 님의 의견 - 4년 전

    선한 사마리아 법이 있어서 위기에 빠진 남을 도와주다가 그 사람 역시 위기에 빠지면 보상은 누가합니까?

    0 0 답글
  3. joseph35533553의 프로필
    Lv4 joseph35533553 님의 의견 - 1년 전

    Without protection measure against the benefactor hurting the Good Samaritan just for helping, this law or discussion seems quite weak.


    What about the woman who sued public officer for sexual harassment when she was clearly rescued by him?

    What about the man who sued a helpful citizen for responsibility on his broken rip and leg when he actually rescued him from the accident?

    Do they truly believe they were hurt by the Good Samaritan, when otherwise they could have been dead quite surely?

    Is everyone deserving the help of Good Samaritan, or are some people just not capable of receiving good-willed help without any malicious response?


    It is the order that we discuss the protection measure and reviewing of those wrongful cases where not only Good Samaritans not get rewarded but also get punished. Just for helping.

    Also, there is no legal standard to clearly discern the difference between by-standing and being unaware. This is unrealistic unless there is a measure to back-track attention record of every individual on the proximity. Thus, discussion is dismissed.

    0 0 답글
  • 토론의 순수성을 신뢰합니다.
  • 서로간의 차이와 다양성을 존중합니다.
  • 소통과 공감을 최고의 가치로 여깁니다.
  • 지식과 지혜의 조건없는 공유를 지향합니다.