Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[00slash00]

So I've been playing The Old Republic (I know, I'm late to the party) and there was a choice in one of the class missions where someone who betrays your trust is in trouble and you're given the option to patch their wounds, or let them die. I'm playing a generally good character but the person kind of really pissed me off. Still, it made me think...if you let someone die, when you could easily save them, is that pretty much the same as killing them?

I'm also aware of how silly it is that a character who has killed hundreds of nameless enemies, it torn over whether it's right to let someone die.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I won't kill you.

But I don't have to save you either.


Not acting to save a person is not the same thing, really, it depends on the context.

If I saw a child drowning and it's totally within my power to save them, no doing so would make me a huge unequivocal douchebag.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So I've been playing The Old Republic (I know, I'm late to the party) and there was a choice in one of the class missions where someone who betrays your trust is in trouble and you're given the option to patch their wounds, or let them die. I'm playing a generally good character but the person kind of really pissed me off. Still, it made me think...if you let someone die, when you could easily save them, is that pretty much the same as killing them?

I'm also aware of how silly it is that a character who has killed hundreds of nameless enemies, it torn over whether it's right to let someone die.

If it was easily within your power? Yes. You exercised choice over whether that person lived or died.

 

[DoPo]

So I've been playing The Old Republic (I know, I'm late to the party) and there was a choice in one of the class missions where someone who betrays your trust is in trouble and you're given the option to patch their wounds, or let them die. I'm playing a generally good character but the person kind of really pissed me off. Still, it made me think...if you let someone die, when you could easily save them, is that pretty much the same as killing them?

I'm also aware of how silly it is that a character who has killed hundreds of nameless enemies, it torn over whether it's right to let someone die.

If it was easily within your power? Yes. You exercised choice over whether that person lived or died.

Pretty much. Now, I don't know if this really is the case but it does seem OP was the only one able to save that NPC. So yeah, it's one thing to, say, not opt to help out an individual with the hope that "it's somebody else's problem" as it often could be, however, in this case it seems that whether the NPC lives or dies really lies on the PC's actions. If you don't help them, they die - yeah, it's not pulling a trigger but it's still entirely up to you.

 

[ItouKaiji]

The world's not black and white so no not saving someone is not the same as killing them, it's just that choosing not to interfere in something that's already happening. Depending on the circumstances it could be an evil decision, but it's still not the same thing as murder.

 

[LetalisK]

Both action and inaction led to the same result, and you knew this, so I say yes. It was a direct result of your choice and enabled it to happen.

Though for the record, I probably would have outright fried him.

 

[Dragonbums]

It's not the same as killing them because you were never the one to commit the act of injuring them to the point of dying in the first place.
Although if people find out that you chose to not help someone when you were perfectly able to do so, it may or may not affect your morality points. Depending on who the person is.

 

[Jamieson 90]

No in the same why a lie by omission isn't exactly the same as a lie, it's still bad but the two situations aren't exactly the same. It's like comparing me to an animal killer since I don't donate to any animal charities yet if I did and it's easily within my power to do so than many animals could be possibly saved, which if the two situations were the same (they're not) then that could potentially make me worse than someone who has only killed one animal; the difference lies in the fact that I don't consciously think about either saving or killing said animals whilst an animal killer has most likely thought about it in a premeditated manner and then carried it out, hence killing something is worse than not saving them - this of course relies on whether you believe intent is important in regards to morality.

 

[Esotera]

It's called manslaughter if you had a reasonable chance of saving them, so in the situation given you would be responsible. But it's not quite the same as murder.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Hmm... interesting conundrum. So this person betrayed you, eh? How much damage did this betrayal cause? If he survives, is there a good probability that he might betray you again? Would saving him likely lead him to be a more loyal ally in future? Would saving him cause more good overall, in the long run?

There are so many variables. Though in theory I would lean toward saving him, I think you'd probably just have to go with your gut.

Captcha: Face the Music. So... captcha thinks you should let him die.

 

[Caiphus]

Under the common law, you generally have no duty to save people from harm and/or death. So there's that. You wouldn't get in trouble for it, at least.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue[/footnote]

 

[In Search of Username]

When the action that would save them is so obvious and so easy that there are no serious obstacles to you doing it, yes.

 

[Gronk]

I would say there's a difference between "killing him" and "letting him die".

 

[Pescetarian]

The first law of robotics is "A robot will not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."

'Nuff said.

 

[RJ 17]

So I've been playing The Old Republic (I know, I'm late to the party) and there was a choice in one of the class missions where someone who betrays your trust is in trouble and you're given the option to patch their wounds, or let them die. I'm playing a generally good character but the person kind of really pissed me off. Still, it made me think...if you let someone die, when you could easily save them, is that pretty much the same as killing them?

I'm also aware of how silly it is that a character who has killed hundreds of nameless enemies, it torn over whether it's right to let someone die.

If it was easily within your power? Yes. You exercised choice over whether that person lived or died.

I'd say this pretty much sums things up right here. Though in general I'd say it depends on the situation. If you would be putting yourself into life-threatening danger by trying to save someone's life - running into a burning building when you're clearly not a firefighter, for example - I'd say you can't be blamed for the person's death.

In the case you were speaking of, 00slash00, you let that person die which is effectively the same as killing them because, like Guppy said, "You exercised choice over whether that person lived or died." You decided that their life wasn't worth saving, so Batman couldn't even make it one movie without breaking his vow.

 

[Fox12]

So I've been playing The Old Republic (I know, I'm late to the party) and there was a choice in one of the class missions where someone who betrays your trust is in trouble and you're given the option to patch their wounds, or let them die. I'm playing a generally good character but the person kind of really pissed me off. Still, it made me think...if you let someone die, when you could easily save them, is that pretty much the same as killing them?

I'm also aware of how silly it is that a character who has killed hundreds of nameless enemies, it torn over whether it's right to let someone die.

It's not necessarily right, but it's not murder.

 

[Funyahns]

Letting someone die who you can save is not murder, but its a real close thing and it would be something difficult to live with.

 

[tofulove]

generally speaking it depends on circumstance. If you could ezly save some ones life with little to no effort on your part than yes. if saving some ones life puts your own or some one elses life in great peril or guarantee death than no.