Nice argument, Mr. Hand Let me try to advocate the case for the positive version of the golden rule (I’ll shorthand to positive duty).
- In European continental law (i.e. Germany, The Netherlands, France, Belgium, Italy) the positive version is in limited form part of criminal and private law without any of the adverse effects mentioned. Such a duty exists if it is possible to help someone else who is in dire need (life-threatening circumstances or serious crimes) and you can help him with no or practically no risk for yourself. I must however admit that it hardly ever finds application, partly because of reasons of proof. This however shows that you can have such a rule, provided it is used sparingly (as it is in every jurisdiction).
But for cases where someone knows about a plotted crime, it has been found to work occasionally. In such a case it is generally accepted is someones positive duty to inform the police. The causality problem may on occasion play up, but in general the fact that one let a serious risk remain can constitute sufficient proof. The Kitty Genovese case would not be prosecuted over here either (we have had similar cases of people drowning near a crowded beach); the causality is too frail.
The fact that a certain rule because of procedural problems will not often lead to law suits/criminal proceedings is no proper argument not to have such a rule, as long as it sometimes may find application.
Caveat: you may be of the opinion that European continental states are already rife with overly liberal social-security arrangements of which this is another example (or consequence or cause). But let me point out that this is not a case of government intervention but rather of the state admonishing private action. You may prefer spontaneous initiative to government sponsored one, then we get to the next step.
- For an ethical, not legally sanctioned, version of a positive duty the arguments proposed are true if and only if every duty is a perfect duty/obligation. However, ethics before the twentieth century generally heldbroader concept of duty of which perfect duties are only one category. A positive duty would be an imperfect duty: it does not oblige you to act on every occasion, but it is held to be a flaw if you never act out on such a duty. Hence it means that a person who never helps someone without being obliged to it or without receiving compensation, is not a good person. This is the classical version that Kant for example held.
Of course you may not accept the ‘imperfect duty’ interpretation. I find myself however supported by the fact that a large number of people freely donates time and money to causes they have no obligation to and do not derive aesthetically pleasure or so out of. I presume these people do it because they somehow find they have a duty to fulfill, even if none of those people (including myself) finds it is duty to do everything he could.
The overreaction problem to me seems just that, an overreaction. In practice people check to see if there is already someone helping, and if so, move on.