Gotchaye, I can imagine you not stopping a mugging because the victim couldn't explain to you why you should. Explain to me how that would be different than this.
Of course I would stop a mugging - when have I ever given the impression that I wouldn't? You'll note that I've made it a point to illustrate the differences between my view and a view that holds that we should not help. However, if someone didn't want to stop a mugging, then they're perfectly within their rights to withhold aid. And yeah, the reason why they would be within their rights to do so is that the victim (or anyone) couldn't give a reason why he should.
Wait being a good human being isn't a good enough reason to have that duty, nor is well I want them to help if it was me according to you. These are the primary reason why if I was given a chance i would do my best to help a sick or injuried person. You seem to keep asking for proof and never providing any. I have no problem paying for Public Health Care why wouldn't I pay for something in nice small amounts rather then getting stuck with a Huge Bill that I have to go into debt to pay and that could quite possible ruin my life.
Close, but I think you're misunderstanding some things. First, yeah, being a good human being isn't a good enough reason to have that duty. If you'd like to argue that being a good human being is a good enough reason, then go ahead and argue it. All I've seen so far is reasoning along the lines of 'because I value certain things, everyone ought to conform to my wishes and act exactly as I would have them act'.
Second, while I would say that 'wanting someone else to help if you were in their place' is not a good enough reason to have the duty, it's close to being a good enough reason. You have a duty to aid if, and only if, you would claim a right to be aided if it were you. If, however, you would not try to claim a right, then no one can force the duty upon you. Of course I would want someone to help me if I were being mugged, but I would understand if someone decided not to. I would probably bear a grudge, but I wouldn't think them an evil person.
I don't have to provide proof. That's entirely your burden, as you're the one saying that I have this or that duty. If you think that we have a duty until someone shows that we don't, then refer to my earlier comments. I'm still waiting for someone to definitively prove that we don't have a duty to kill babies. The fact that there's no reason for such a duty is reason enough to deny it. The same holds for these duties you advocate.
The more you talk about it the more I convinced that you are not really interested in doing much of anything.
As with Fresca, I just don't see where you're getting this from. It seems to me like you're equating 'not believing in a duty to do something' and 'not wanting to do something', which is, frankly, silly. To take something relevant to this forum - I don't believe that we have a duty to play Warhammer, but I play anyway. Likewise, I don't believe that we have a duty to aid, but I aid anyway.
The essence of my argument is simply that we cannot be said to have a duty if there is no reason for such a duty to exist. A 'reason' is not simply something like 'because I think it's nice', which is what so many of the arguments for a duty to aid boil down to. Without reference to subjective notions, demonstrate that we have a duty. Show me that even someone who places no value whatsoever on human life, even his own, still has a duty to save lives. Show me that this person, who also happens to place a great deal of value on killing small children, is wrong when he says that you have a duty to help him kill babies. That's all that I ask. I'm just not marking a difference between what he's saying and what you're saying, except for the fact that my life would be much more pleasant under your system. However, surely that's not a reason for a duty, as this hypothetical person would undoubtedly have a more pleasant life under his system.
