An interesting ethical issue has been raised here. Must you take action to save somebody?

It seems rational to me that a person is required to do no evil, but is not required to do good.

I agree with laws against crime, but would object to any law requiring me to be a good Samaritan. I have the right to choose when I risk my time, effort, money, or life. I also have the right to dispise and have no dealings with somebody who would not save a life at hardly any cost to himself, even though I would vote against any law to punish him for his inaction.

Take the situation of somebody drowning. If it is an infant in three feeet of water in a swimming pool, I would surely attempt to save him/her, and expect that most people would. Some wet clothes are a small price to pay for a life. If the infant was in the raging white water of the Colorado river, I would not attempt a rescue (although in my teens I would have at least thought about helping). If was a 300 pound adult in the white water, I would not think about taking any action other than throwing in a life jacket if I had one. As far as I am concerned, each individual has the right to draw his own line between these two extremes.

Why should I judge the individual who did not try to rescue the child in the pool? Maybe he/she had a phobia about water. Maybe she/he did not notice the child.