Is letting someone die more morally permisible than killing?

[Mark5]

In a philosophy course where we have been debating this topic for over a week now, wanted to see Huddler's opinions.

 

No crazy circumstances, just a general question. Is having the complete ability to save someone's life and passing by more morally permissible than incentively killing someone?

 

Discuss.

 

 

2 totally different instances--- we are trained in first aid assistance per job description.. came up on a wreck where she was buckled in and bleeding from a head injury, coherent for the most part but didn't want to move her in case further damage might happen (pre cell phoned days) went to the nearest house and called the police and gave the location of the wreck and let the paramedics tend to her, kept her awake till they got there.. Life saved.. even got a thank you letter.. Second instance-- dude was changing a big truck tire at a hole in the wall service station (the old widowmaker setup design) the ring blew off and split his head open REALLY BAD, no amount of first aid was gonna save this guy, just had to stand there and watch him die. I didn't have the COMPLETE ability to save him. I didn't feel like I killed him by not rendering aid. It is really a case by case basis. Maybe next weeks philosphy topic will be "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound"

 

Not dogging you, just asking-- why do people take philosophy courses? Street smarts get you through life in a crunch.

[billay]

Is inaction as morally accountable as action? I'm not sure the question is as much about the specifics of the situation as it is about the choice not to act. If you can choose, then aren't you in control? Even if you don;t actually perform the action. All things being equal, I'd say yes. I think the scenario is supposed to be more along the lines of you not having to do anything to save the person, other than choose that they be saved. Random psycho on the street says to you "Unless you tell me not to, I'm going to shoot the mail man." You say nothing, guy shoots the mailman. You can always hide in the ambiguity however, if somesuch had happened, then it wouldn;t have been my fault. I didn't make him shoot the mailman There's no ambiguity when you shoot the mailman. There's no plausable deniability.

[whomper]

It's been my experience that most people tend to freeze up or hesitate to act. I don't see this as a flaw, I just believe this makes them human. We all want to believe that we're noble and brave, but when people are put face to face with a critical moment it's either fight or flight. I've seen grown men run from a burning house with their families still inside, and I've seen people risk their own safety to help complete strangers.

 

I've had some true moments over the years when I can say I've actually saved someones life. But I've also had two moments in my career when I've had to watch people die that I could provide no assistance to whatsover. One was a drowning that we couldn't reach in time and one was an entrapped man in a burning vehicle. These are two things that I remember very vividly and will never forget. I also carry guilt over the deaths of both these men, even though I am certain I could not have done anything to prevent their deaths.

 

People never know how they will react until they are put in a crisis situation, so I'd reserve judgement on those who don't act out of fear. Those who don't offer help out of pure indifference are inhuman in my eyes.

 

 

Wow. Thats a great post from someone with experience. I have to think the men that run from the burning buildings with the families still inside eventually suffer from unbearable guilt and anguish.

[budlitebrad]

From what I remember from the Bible, knowing what is good and choosing not to act that way is worse than straight up evil. It's somewhere in James, I think.