NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple enough question, but not an easy answer:

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?

I suspect many will say "no, not quite", but few will say that sins of omission don't exist at all. So let's debate the issue.

I wouldn't hold anybody accountable to save a random person's life, though if somebody was easily capable of doing so and decided not to, I'd have quite a lot of things to say to them after the event...

I believe along the lines you just said. However there are good samaritan laws in the US. You are required in many places to assist someone in distress unless it puts you in danger too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Ugh.

I wouldn't hold anybody accountable to save a random person's life, though if somebody was easily capable of doing so and decided not to, I'd have quite a lot of things to say to them after the event...

I believe along the lines you just said. However there are good samaritan laws in the US. You are required in many places to assist someone in distress unless it puts you in danger too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

I wouldn't hold anybody accountable to save a random person's life, though if somebody was easily capable of doing so and decided not to, I'd have quite a lot of things to say to them after the event...

Pretty much. I'm not down on people for not being Superman or something but if all it took was for you to reach out your hand and you didn't do it, you're pretty much a bastard.

I believe along the lines you just said. However there are good samaritan laws in the US. You are required in many places to assist someone in distress unless it puts you in danger too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

France has such laws, as I'm sure NSG remembers after that bit of controversy a while back.

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?

No, because generally actively saving someone is more difficult than passively avoiding killing them, and the difficulty is a mitigating factor.

But it's still wrong.

Suppose you saw three naked clowns beating up a midget. Is watching in horror the same as stripping, slathering on some whiteface and kicking the midget in the head?

Of course not. Besides, sometimes you're the only one with a camcorder. *nod*

I believe along the lines you just said. However there are good samaritan laws in the US. You are required in many places to assist someone in distress unless it puts you in danger too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

Not in the US
Unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim.

And in Canada only if you are certified, or a child is in danger.

The Good Samaritan Law just protects the person from being liable for any damages.


As for the OP-there are a lot of different variables that could come out of that one scenario, but a good rule of thumb for me is: if you would be putting your own self at risk then my answer would be "no" it is not as wrong.

If someone was to die because you're a lazy bastard and didn't help them when all you had to didn't harm you in any ways then I feel it is just as bad. But to try and fail is different, you can't always do everything perfectly.

depends on the circumstances eh?

i was watching "alpha dog" last night. (yeah it starred justin timberlake but i swear i wasnt watching it for him)

the plot was based on a real incident where some loser petty criminal drug dealer types kidnap and muder the younger brother of a friend who owes them money. the justin timberlake character doesnt kill the boy but he "omits" his chance to let him go or to stop the shooter from killing the boy. the real life person it was based on was sentenced to life in prison for his crime of omission. he could easily have saved the boy but he didnt.

Not in the US


And in Canada only if you are certified, or a child is in danger.

The Good Samaritan Law just protects the person from being liable for any damages.


As for the OP-there are a lot of different variables that could come out of that one scenario, but a good rule of thumb for me is: if you would be putting your own self at risk then my answer would be "no" it is not as wrong.

Yes it protects against liability and it goes further in the area I live in. There are laws in Washington here that you must assist someone in distress as long as it doesn't put oneself in danger. I know there are similar laws around the nation. So that would be a yes for the US.

Edit: It is a sad commentary on humanity that laws would have to be passed in such a way. It should be instinct to help if one can.

It is a sad commentary on humanity that laws would have to be passed in such a way. It should be instinct to help if one can.
It is a testament to human domination over animal instincts. In this case, a rather lamentable one.

interesting topic.

Personally I'm doubting. On the one hand you can clearly see a difference in intention which would make murdering someone worse than not trying to save him, but on the other hand we're intelligent enough to predict the consequences of the choices we make. I'm inclined to go with the last one though, mainly because I can't really see any intention that would be important enough to not save someone (assuming the one about to fall didn't want to), unless you assume your own rights to be a lot more important than those of others.

For instance if you see a child drowning in a muddy pool, you can save it but that will mean that your new suit will be ruined. You don't save the child because you intend to keep your new suit. I don't think, and I believe most will agree with me, that saving your new suit is a good enough intention to let the child drown, and most will say you have acted immoral. I can't really think about other situations or other intentions (accept for saving other lives or something equally important) where not saving would be the good thing to do.

This has some strange consequences though, every time you buy a new suit you could spend the money on saving the life of a child (donating it to unicef or another charity that helps children).

Although I can't really see any reason why this wouldn't be true I can't really say I never buy new clothes or luxurious items, so I don't really live up to my (high) standards I guess.

It is a testament to human domination over animal instincts.
What does this actually mean? What instincts are you ‘dominating’?

Humans are animals. We are part of nature, not outside of it.

Reminds me of a thought experiment we did in General Studies a few years ago. There's a runaway mine train hurtling towards a set of points where the line splits in two. To the right there are five workers on the track, on the left there is only one. Unless you change the points to go to the left, the runaway train will hit the guys on the right. What do you do?

I facetiously said jam the points half way and derail it.

What does this actually mean? What instincts are you ‘dominating’?
The ones mentioned in the post I was referring to. Rush to help is instinctive, although usually it is limited to relatives or herd members.
Humans are animals. We are part of nature, not outside of it.Yes. The only animals that so often act against their instincts.

Reminds me of a thought experiment we did in General Studies a few years ago. There's a runaway mine train hurtling towards a set of points where the line splits in two. To the right there are five workers on the track, on the left there is only one. Unless you change the points to go to the left, the runaway train will hit the guys on the right. What do you do?

I facetiously said jam the points half way and derail it.

That's a very Kobiyashi Maru answer. How did it scan?

Was that one of those "gotcha" questions where you're supposed to pick the choice that kills only one, but the five you spare were all child molesters on work release or something?

Reminds me of a thought experiment we did in General Studies a few years ago. There's a runaway mine train hurtling towards a set of points where the line splits in two. To the right there are five workers on the track, on the left there is only one. Unless you change the points to go to the left, the runaway train will hit the guys on the right. What do you do?

I facetiously said jam the points half way and derail it.

Yell and warn them?

Simple enough question, but not an easy answer:

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?

I suspect many will say "no, not quite", but few will say that sins of omission don't exist at all. So let's debate the issue.Not as wrong. And you have to assume that you had the opportunity to prevent it from happening.

<snip>
For instance if you see a child drowning in a muddy pool, you can save it but that will mean that your new suit will be ruined. You don't save the child because you intend to keep your new suit. I don't think, and I believe most will agree with me, that saving your new suit is a good enough intention to let the child drown, and most will say you have acted immoral. I can't really think about other situations or other intentions (accept for saving other lives or something equally important) where not saving would be the good thing to do.

This has some strange consequences though, <snip>

Good points... and how far would it go? Like, if you could save soneone from falling off a cliff, but knew that in the process your shoulder would be injured, perhaps permanently, are you still morally obligated to save them?

What if you knew you'd get seriously burned saving someone from a fire?

To both of those, I'd say yes, you have a moral obligation even if for no other reason than that while an injured arm is much more important than a ruined business suit, it's still a smaller loss than the life of another person.

Risking life? I still say it should be done althoug I wouldn't judge someone too harshly for shrinking back from it. I think people ought to be willing to give their life for another but that's a higher moral code.

Yell and warn them?
I'm sure someone else would have said that. It's a general studies session, nobody takes it seriously.

That's a very Kobiyashi Maru answer. How did it scan?

Was that one of those "gotcha" questions where you're supposed to pick the choice that kills only one, but the five you spare were all child molesters on work release or something?
No, but it'd have been more fun if they were, so long as I wasn't the one tagged as the guy who saves child molesters in the playground.

Good points... and how far would it go? Like, if you could save soneone from falling off a cliff, but knew that in the process your shoulder would be injured, perhaps permanently, are you still morally obligated to save them?

What if you knew you'd get seriously burned saving someone from a fire?

To both of those, I'd say yes, you have a moral obligation even if for no other reason than that while an injured arm is much more important than a ruined business suit, it's still a smaller loss than the life of another person.

Risking life? I still say it should be done althoug I wouldn't judge someone too harshly for shrinking back from it. I think people ought to be willing to give their life for another but that's a higher moral code.

Those aren't easy questions to answer. Especially since they aren't very exact situations. Luckily we don't face those questions every day.

I think that for the first one you should be morally obliged to do so, the loss of one arm isn't as important as the loss of a life. I don't think that losing one arm will severely hinder someone in living a fulfilling life, while dieing certainly can. I do wonder how you can risk an arm but not your life, if something can hit your arm it can just as well hit your head I would say.
I'm not as sure about the second one. Mainly because because getting seriously burnt can for instance take away your independence, cause extreme pain and destroy one's life. I don't think you value one person's interests more in this case by saying that one shouldn't be morally obliged to save someone's life when the results can be so harmful. (and we're not even considering how the life of the person in the fire, who will likely be hurt as much if not more, will turn out after being 'saved' or the risks professional firefighters will have to take to rescue you both for instance).
The same reasoning can be given for the last one.

On the other hand, every firefighter risks severe burns or worse when rescuing others from a burning building. But you could assume that they're well trained and can calculate the risks they take. (it would be interesting if a firefighter or someone with an equal task gave us a little bit information on how they have to react to such risks, I guess they are trained not to risk their own life) I don't think we can ask that every non-trained person runs into a burning building to save the people in it (maybe that could only make the situation worse).

So in short I think that it depends on the exact situation you're in, but as a rule-of-thumb you could say that you're morally obliged to help others in need as long as you you have a serious chance of success and don't risk to make the overall outcome of the situation worse than it would have been if you didn't intervene.

I think yes. When one is faced with the two end results: 1.Person dies. 2. Person doesn't die. The way in which it happens is meaningless. If you can do something about it, you're responsible.

I think yes. When one is faced with the two end results: 1.Person dies. 2. Person doesn't die. The way in which it happens is meaningless. If you can do something about it, you're responsible.

I'm not contradicting that, but what if you have to risk your own life?

1. Person dies
2. Person doesn't die
3. Two persons die

Or if one or both would be severely handicapped after the saving?

Simple enough question, but not an easy answer:

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?

I suspect many will say "no, not quite", but few will say that sins of omission don't exist at all. So let's debate the issue.

For once, stepping entirely out of the legal context, I'm going to say that an omission can be as bad as a commission, but it's going to depend on the circumstances. Such as, whether or not your omission actually makes things worse, whether you could in fact act in any way to alter the events, and whether or not the outcome of the omission is desired or not.

I can't swim. If I don't save someone from drowning because I'd drown myself...is that an omission? I can swim...but I'm not necessarily a good enough swimmer to rescue someone from a riptide. Is that as bad as drowning someone myself? I don't think so.

The common example used in tort law is walking by and seeing a child drowning in a puddle. It would be quite easy for almost any person to lift that child out of the puddle and save its life. Most people would. Those that walk by without doing anything...are they as bad as someone who would actually drown the child? Is indifference as horrible as murderous intent?

I'm not decided. I tend to believe that the latter is still worse...without it absolving the former from guilt.

So in short I think that it depends on the exact situation you're in, but as a rule-of-thumb you could say that you're morally obliged to help others in need as long as you you have a serious chance of success and don't risk to make the overall outcome of the situation worse than it would have been if you didn't intervene.

QFT

I think that's the best possible way to summarize it. Kudos! :)

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?
It depends on the amount of effort required to save the person and the amount of risk involved.

If the risk is zero and the effort required to save the person in question is no greater than the effort required to actively kill them, then omission is just as bad as commission and should receive equal punishment under the law.

However, if we increase risk and effort, omission becomes progressively less bad. If you'd have to risk your own life to save someone, or if the effort involved would be so great as to leave you physically or financially drained (e.g. you would likely end up in a hospital and/or bankrupt), then you are under no moral compulsion to save them.

Simple enough question, but not an easy answer:

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?

I suspect many will say "no, not quite", but few will say that sins of omission don't exist at all. So let's debate the issue.
* raises hand*

Sins of omission don't exist at all.

Inaction is equivalent to absence. Since I can't be held responsible for not saving the guy falling off the cliff if I weren't there, I can't be required to save him if I am there.

My mere presence in the room doesn't create obligations for me to act in a particular way. Not act, sure (I can fire a gun randomly in an open field, but not in a crowded room), but actually do something? I don't see how that obligation comes to exist.

Action and inaction are different in kind.

There appears to be a misunderstanding of negation behind this common position, but I haven't quite pinned it does, yet.

There appears to be a misunderstanding of negation behind this common position, but I haven't quite pinned it does, yet.

I don't think that you hold a common position. If you see someone drown for instance, most people will say that you have the moral obligation to help them if possible.

And sin isn't relevant in this discussion. It would be a sin to have sex with somebody you love but haven't married but it wouldn't be a sin to stand and watch a child drown while most would agree that the former isn't immoral while the later is.

I don't think that you hold a common position. If you see someone drown for instance, most people will say that you have the moral obligation to help them if possible.
I'm aware that my position is uncommon, but I think the contrary position (the common position) is based on a misapplication of negation, and thus people aren't correctly seeing the distinction between commission and ommission.

But I need to work that one out some more. This negation thing just came to me today.

Inaction is equivalent to absence. Since I can't be held responsible for not saving the guy falling off the cliff if I weren't there, I can't be required to save him if I am there.
Well, no. Inaction is not equivalent to absence. If you're absent, you can't help. If you do not act, you can help but choose not to.

Most of us argue that your obligation to help someone is directly proportional to your ability to help, or inversely proportional to the effort required to help, or something like that.

If you are somewhere far away, your ability to help is greatly diminished or zero. Travelling requires effort, so the farther away someone is from you -> the farther you have to travel to help him -> the greater the effort required to help him -> the less obligation you have to provide help.

But that requires that simply being in the room is sufficient to change my behaviour from moral to immoral, and I don't see how that's possible. My actual behaviour is the same in both cases; all that's changed is my possible behaviour.

Is morality that modal?

It depends. If you created the conditions that caused the person to fall over the cliff, then it is the same as if you pushed them. In other cases, the morality might be different.

Suppose you saw three naked clowns beating up a midget. Is watching in horror the same as stripping, slathering on some whiteface and kicking the midget in the head?

Of course not. Besides, sometimes you're the only one with a camcorder. *nod*

Why do these clowns have to be nekkid I wonder?

Why do these clowns have to be nekkid I wonder?

So you can see how far the make-up goes and if any other parts are red and honk. *nod*

Is failing to save someone from falling off a cliff as wrong as pushing someone off it?


Almost (99%) as bad, if one has the opportunity to save the guy.