The dilemma Rohit faces reflects the timeless ethical question raised by philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who argued that moral actions arise from duty, not convenience. Similarly, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism emphasises the greatest good with least cost, here, Rohit can save a life at negligible risk. Modern societies often rely on the spirit of Good Samaritan behaviour, where individuals voluntarily help others in distress, forming the moral fabric of human coexistence.

Stakeholders

1. Rohit – the bystander with ability to help.
2. The teenage boy – whose life is in immediate danger.
3. The boy’s family.
4. Society – which depends on mutual aid and social trust.
5. State/legal system – responsible for framing Good Samaritan protections or obligations.

Ethical Issues Involved

1. Moral responsibility vs personal inconvenience: Rohit faces a conflict between self-interest and a life-saving duty.
2. Value of human life vs trivial personal discomfort – ethical proportionality.
3. Omission vs commission – Is failing to act morally equivalent to harm?
4. Crisis of conscience – internal conflict between compassion and indifference.
5. Debate on legal enforceability of morality – Should Good Samaritan duties be legally mandated?

Options Available

Option 1: Rohit jumps in and saves the boy.

Option 2: Rohit walks away, prioritising comfort and convenience.

Option 3: Rohit does not jump himself but tries to find help or call emergency services.

What Rohit should do (Best Course of Action)?

Yes, Rohit has a clear moral obligation to save the boy. This is grounded in Duty ethics (Kant), Utilitarianism (saving a life outweighs a minor personal inconvenience) and Virtue ethics (Aristotle).

1. Immediately assess safety – the case states there is zero risk to Rohit.
2. Jump into the water without hesitation.
3. Rescue the boy and ensure he receives warmth/medical attention.
4. If necessary, inform local authorities or contact the boy’s family.
5. Reflect upon the moral duty fulfilled rather than the inconvenience suffered.

Should he have a legal obligation? (Good Samaritan Laws)

1. 1. Many countries have Good Samaritan laws that protect helpers from legal trouble.
   2. A few jurisdictions impose a legal duty to rescue when:
      1. Risk to rescuer is minimal, and
      2. The potential harm to the victim is severe.

• Should such a law exist here?

• Arguments For:

1. 1. 1. 1. Encourages responsible citizenship.
         2. Saves lives in emergencies.
         3. Builds compassionate societal norms.

• Arguments Against:

1. 1. 1. 1. Over-legislation of morality may cause fear or resentment.
         2. Practical enforcement challenges.

• Balanced View:

1. 1. A law should not criminalise failure to act, but should strongly protect and encourage rescuers, similar to India’s Good Samaritan Law for road accidents.
   2. Moral duty should remain the main driver; law should facilitate, not coerce.

As IPS officer Satya Narayan Pradhan once said, “The first duty of a human is to be humane.”

Rohit’s scenario illustrates that in moments where personal discomfort stands against saving a life, moral duty must prevail. Laws can promote a culture of helpfulness, but the true strength of society lies in individual courage and compassion. A responsible citizen – like a responsible civil servant – must act when a life depends on them.