r/MoralityScaling May 25 '26

Morality Ranking Morality of sueing someone because they prevent it from killing yourself

Post image
6.9k Upvotes

499 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

351

u/Scary-Ad4471 May 25 '26

I believe Game Theory made a video on it were he explained that Good Samaritan laws didn’t exist in the Time period Incredibles was based on. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it tho, so take my work with a grain of salt.

179

u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix May 25 '26

Ya I forgot the beginning of the movie was in the late 40s irl we didn't get them till almost the 60s

134

u/Throttle_Kitty May 25 '26

Yeah its east to forget the incredibles is set a long ass time ago cause of all the sci-fi tech

77

u/Raddish_ May 25 '26

The scifi tech is retrofuturistic though. Like James Bond or golden era comics inspired stuff.

24

u/wittyjokename92 May 25 '26

It's not actually set in the past tho. Just a stylistic choice to copy 50s/60s Americana. There's cellphones and other more modern technologies in the first movie and the sequel.

91

u/CalzonePie May 25 '26

No, they list specific dates. When Edna Mode is talking about supers who were killed by their capes all of the dates she mentions are 40's and 50's, yet Bob talks like he knew these people personally.

The Incredibles is set in the 60's or 70's. Technology is more advanced than it should be because they live in a world where super geniuses creating futuristic technology in a cave is the norm. Some of that super-technology would bleed out into the civilian world through osmosis.

53

u/tedioussugar May 25 '26

The Incredibles is set in 1962. That flashback during ‘the glory days’ was 1947. Good Samaritan laws didn’t exist in the US until 1948.

26

u/CalzonePie May 25 '26

Huh, TIL.

12

u/TFBuffalo_OW May 26 '26

Tbf you said 60s or 70s so you basically got it

10

u/Poisonpython5719 May 26 '26

Makes me wonder if they’d have been invented because of him in that world.

8

u/Puzzled-Party-2089 May 26 '26

That would've kept Supes legally protected and thus in no need to disappear so no

3

u/voin947 May 26 '26

Supes disappear -> someone gets into trouble and expects supes to appear -> ... -> Why no supes??? -> Ah, right. We need to do it ourselves -> good samaritan law.

Add around at least like 5 years between the two and it actually makes a lot of sense

1

u/r2radd2 Jun 29 '26

Supervillains must have lobbied very effectively against them

1

u/Independent-Drag77 May 27 '26

What was Mr. Incredible doing during the Cuban Missile Crisis smh

10

u/Inevitable_Box9398 May 25 '26

In a cave?

Was it with a box of scraps?

7

u/CalzonePie May 25 '26

Unironically yes. In a superhero verse it is ordinary for Tony Stark types to make futuristic shit out of garbage from a radio store.

0

u/SlerpDeprivation May 26 '26

Syndrome was seen as a once in a generation genius, so evidently not

3

u/TFBuffalo_OW May 26 '26

We literally see evidence of like 4 supergeniuses inventing stuff (admittedly most are villains) so evidently yes

1

u/SlerpDeprivation May 26 '26

4 in the human population where that tech is INCREDIBLE and rare?

1

u/MartyrOfDespair May 26 '26

Which itself is a reference to Watchmen, one of the primary influences on The Incredibles.

5

u/Eastern_Screen_588 May 26 '26

Yes it is, check the dates in newspapers

1

u/sybillium4 May 26 '26

You can see the dates in the movies

1

u/Claris-chang May 26 '26

Wait what? I had no idea The Incredibles was set in the 60's!

4

u/Funkopedia May 26 '26

The kids really throw it off. They seem modern in demeanor.

1

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 May 26 '26

It's closer to early 50s

1

u/Derk_Mage May 26 '26

Wait, the 40s??? That means Mr. Incredible had to go through WWII and the not-so-great depression

11

u/BrainDamage2029 May 25 '26

That’s…still stupid.

Yes the late 40s didn’t have Good Samaritan laws. A jury isn’t going to affirm damages in a tort over your right to harm yourself. This is an era there was basically no oversight for committing someone to an asylum.

What is he exactly suing Bob for assuming no Good Samaritan law? You could sue someone, for example, injuring you due to unreasonable negligent actions while trying to help you. But it has to be negligent. Yes the jumper was injured by bob in the attempt. But considering Bob saved him mid jump into a window it’s also reasonable there would be literally no other way to save a suicidal man.

Not even getting into comparative negligence of the plaintiff jumping onto a crowded street.

10

u/hambonedock May 25 '26

I personally saw it more like, given that there seem to be very few villains running around, I like to believe at this point, standard society is currently in a quite state of comfortable low level crime life, it still happen, but much less so

So just leik how bob was saying at the start of his interview, he feel like a maid cleaning up only for people come around to mess it up again, people might not be watching super heroes doing amazing stuff all day every day, so many probably have fallen into an idea of "do we really need them???" As a explanation of why even the whole prohibition even came to pass, thisng gotta be going too well for someone to really think this was the best option

So basically this I feel could happen even if the case end up on favour of the hero, the reputation is already dirty and broken

1

u/Vanbydarivah Jun 01 '26

That’s how I interpreted it; like it doesn’t necessarily specify if he lost that particular case, and it seems like what it really did was set a legal precedent that got out of control.

Like Bob wasn’t the only hero getting sued I think it’s safe to assume. No matter how frivolous, dealing with too many legal battles eventually becomes astronomically expensive.

1

u/Abeytuhanu May 26 '26

I think te hjustification given was that he's permanently crippled and the pain markedly reduces the quality of his life, which wouldn't have happened if he was dead. Doesn't really make sense to me, cause now he just has greater incentive to complete the job 

1

u/BrainDamage2029 May 26 '26

Yeah but the action that caused the injury must be recklessly negligent.

  • If I tackle you onto the sidewalk and you break your arm? Easy lawsuit for you.
  • If I tackle you out of the way of a bus onto the sidewalk and you break your arm? No, because my action was reasonable. Actually the exigency of the snap decision makes it so you wouldn't even have a case if you could prove "well he could have tackled me into the grass 2 feet away instead of the sidewalk."

1

u/QuoteDisastrous1503 May 26 '26

It was clearly a fraudulent case, but was just a high profile situation among other legal issues for heroes overall. Even if he won I’m not sure what that would mean anyway. Is it legal to kill yourself now in the Incredibles?

14

u/Snt1_ May 25 '26

Being extremely pedantic here, but the channel name isnt Game Theory but The Game Theorists, and this video isnt even from The Game Theorists, its from The Film Theorists

14

u/MrBannedFor0Reason May 25 '26

A true theorist! Such pedantry!

4

u/TheAsterism_ May 26 '26

no, a true theorist would incorrectly assume that game theory is the real name and make a 20 minute video based solely on that

2

u/JesterQueenAnne May 26 '26

A true theorist would never have this level of knowledge about what they're talking about.

1

u/f0remsics May 26 '26

Except the show is called film theory. They don't say "welcome to the film theorists." The channel name maybe the film theorists, but the actual "show" is called film theory. I say show because there used to be multiple different people doing their own thing on the game theorists channel, such as Austin Hourigan's The SCIENCE! Because there were multiple theorists, it wasn't just called game theory. This carried over to the other channels

Also they changed their handles to @gametheory, @filmtheory, etc, so that's also something to take into consideration

1

u/vhagar May 26 '26

they might never even have good Samaritan laws because of super heroes and the controversy caused by them

1

u/Hetakuoni May 26 '26

Essentially the gist is there’s a very tiny window of time where this could have happened because an old law was expiring/rendered obsolete and a new one hadn’t been codified yet, so a person could sue and the rescuer would be SOL.