Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[Evonisia]

I'd say no, but it'd but a heavy burden on you and you would be partially responsible.

If, for example, you didn't help somebody hanging off the edge of a cliff but that person was pushed by somebody else, it's still the pusher's fault that they died.

 

[rheianna]

Under the criminal laws that apply where I live you can be punished for killing someone, be it through action or inaction and given the same sentence. There are certain additional conditions that have to be met in order for someone to be declared guilty of killing through inaction though. The person has to be in a position to prevent the death. He/she also has to have a particular responsibility towards the person who died, either due to law, contract or because you put the person in danger in the first place.

There's also a more general statute that obliges people to help anyone in mortal danger if they are in a position to help. Not doing so carries a penalty of up to three years in jail.

 

[DanielBrown]

I'm not intrested in these questions if there aren't at least one whirlpool involved.

OT: Yes, I'd consider it about the same as killing, but as said two posts above it's all about the circumstances. If they're in a whirlpool and I can't swim I should go get help instead. Or find a fishing rod.

 

[Kargathia]

so Batman couldn't even make it one movie without breaking his vow.

I'd be extremely surprised already if all the mooks he beat up survived.

OT: It's not. Killing them is being responsible for their death due to your actions. Letting them die (not saving them) is being responsible for their death due to your inaction.

Personally I'd draw the line at being responsible for a death if you could've saved them without incurring significant risk of being harmed in the process.

This of course leaves a rather large grey area both in whether letting somebody die weighs as heavily as murder, and what exactly constitutes "significant risk of harm" - and whether this needs be physical, or that eg. financial or psychological harm also qualify.

Where you draw the line through that grey area is something that I'll leave up to each individual, and lawmakers.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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 you do nothing, yes. Staring down when a person slowly dies is basically killing them. You really should try to help them out, or try to get somebody that can help. If you don't have legs, no one can blame you if couldn't help the person who was drowning. Just know your limits. It is better to not help if your incompetent attempts only get the person killed and pointlessly get yourself in danger or worse.

Always, at very least, call 911, and try to get the attention of as many people as possible.

 

[Ace Morologist]

Generally speaking, refusing to save someone you're sure you could save is not as bad as killing someone, but it's still bad.

That said, there's shades of how bad it is depending on the circumstances. (And I guess there's legal distinctions based on circumstances and all that too.) In your specific video game case, making the choice to let the guy die because he'd wronged you, that reflects poorly on you.

--Morology!

 

[Easton Dark]

It sure is. The intent can be different but the end result is the same.

 

[5ilver]

Well, we're all going to die anyway so it's not really possible to "save" a life, only prolong their torment.

So, first, you'd have to ask/define what "saving a life" is to you. After that, you can go on to answer the question in the OP.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

I would say they're different but the results are the same, which casts doubts on any preferences one may have when evaluating each scenario. I say the results are the same because it boils down to a really simple question: Do your actions directly determine whether or not this person lives or dies? If the answer is yes, then you're the last link between them and death on the (human influenced) causal chain. Whether you shoot someone in the face or let them fall off a roof, they're still dead, and they got that because of something you did or did not do. Either way, it's all you.

I think denying participation in this causal chain is a product of shifting responsibility. People generally don't want to be put into the kind of position where they have to make difficult decisions or accept the cost of taking responsibility so they rationalize it away. It's the same thing as claiming that supporting the firearms industry through recreational activities does not contribute to gun deaths or that you're not contributing to the deaths of millions of starving babies when you buy video games instead of donating to charity. You most certainly are a part of those systems of cause and effect, you have the power to change some of that, and you're choosing not to. To deny this is to deny, well, reality. Which is also something that people readily do.

What you should do when presented with such a decision is another matter entirely, and probably something that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Angelous Wang]

As far as the law is concerned (in America, UK and most other places), not saving someone is defiantly not the same.

If someone was hanging on a ledge and you just stood over them and watched them struggle and fall to their death then you wouldn't be legally accountable at all (provided you in no way had anything to do with them getting into that situation).

In order for it to be murder you actually have to preform some action that leads to their death.

The worst you can be charged for for inaction is manslaughter, but in order to get that you would have to have been responsible/accountable for the individual in some way.

... as for the morality of it, well it's a grey area ... I would say if risks your life or the life of others you are justified not to save the person. But if it has no risks and you don't that's bad.

Of course it also really depends on the person, if they are close you could easily be seen a monster for not saving them, where as if you just let a serial killer die people would not really care.

 

[michaelwcompton]

I'm a little surprised to see that a great many people are willing to equate choosing not to act in someone's favor with specifically acting to end their life. I'll make no argument that watching someone die when you have the opportunity to save them isn't a callous, immoral act, but the two examples are very different. I'm no lawyer, but it was my understanding that Murder in the U.S. is split into three different classes. Murder 1 is premeditated. Murder 2 is committed in the heat of the moment, as it were. (The proverbial, crime of passion.) Murder 3 is depraved indifference. As I understand it, the test for that is, would any reasonable person have acted to save that person's life.

The operative distinction for Murder is Mens Rea. Your intent - your thought process has everything to do with the situation. So I suppose, two different players could make the same decision, and for one of them it would be murder (3) and for another it would be nothing at all, depending on the motivation behind the decision.

If a small act will save someone's life, and you refuse to do it, you are guilty of something. But, if that person is a traitor - if that person has willfully put you or others in mortal danger, you are under no obligation to help them, knowing full well that they may put you in mortal danger again. Bear in mind, that there is an in universe war going on. Providing humanitarian first aid to an enemy is the right (light side) thing to do, but not giving aid to an enemy is not equivalent to murder. (Unless they have surrendered to you, in which case, it's pretty awful.) Just the way I see it. Again, I'm no lawyer.

 

[Taurus Vis]

Edit: Ninja'd so much

 

[rekabdarb]

Let me answer with a thought question i love.

Which is worse.
Option A:
Seeing a kid drowning in a river. No one else is around and you can save him... but you choose not to. (My choice)
Option 2:
You are drowning a kid in a river.

BUT if we're talking about a thing where you can save them but choose not too... then i'd have to say yeh.

 

[Xanadu84]

Depends on the context. If it is in fact a trivial amount of effort to save someone, then yes, it is killing them. Any other interpretation is semantics. It may be JUSTIFIED. it may be practical. And perhaps from a legal perspective, there is a difference because, "Letting someone die" is a broad concept.

HOWEVER, this also is assuming the starting point of someone ALREADY being in a position where you can let them die. If you are comparing no effort to let someone die versus SOME effort to kill a person, then the effort is worse. However, both would still be killing from any position that's not semantics. The details of causality are kind of petty in comparison.

 

[FoolKiller]

snip

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

Umm... that's not the same as killing someone. Killing someone is an active event. Letting them die is a passive event. By that argument, you kill hundreds of third world kids a day by not donating all your money and goods to them every day of your life.

And yes, that is easily in your power. If you spend any money on something other than food, shelter, or towards something to get those two, it is optional and could be spent not killing kids.

 

[RJ 17]

so Batman couldn't even make it one movie without breaking his vow.

I'd be extremely surprised already if all the mooks he beat up survived.

Hey now...punctured lungs, ruptured kidneys, and broken limbs are EASILY survivable! Especially when you're laying unconscious in a back alley with internal bleeding just preying that someone sees you and dials 911 on your behalf.

 

[RJ 17]

snip

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

Umm... that's not the same as killing someone. Killing someone is an active event. Letting them die is a passive event. By that argument, you kill hundreds of third world kids a day by not donating all your money and goods to them every day of your life.

And yes, that is easily in your power. If you spend any money on something other than food, shelter, or towards something to get those two, it is optional and could be spent not killing kids.

That's not what the question asked. The question that was asked was "If someone is dying in front of you and you do nothing to save them when you easily could, are you culpable for their death?"

 

[Greg White]

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.

I'd say no. The guy already betrayed you, so you have no reason to like him as it is, and it costs you either valuable supplies/energy to patch him up, but to what end?

Not a good choice, but inaction isn't an evil act, not in this case anyway.

 

[DuelLadyS]

I think it's a VERY case-by-case thing... to use the drowning child example... I wouldn't go in after a drowning child. If I had a working phone, I'd call for help, if they were close to the edge I might reach for them, but I wouldn't go in the water. I'm sure some of you are thinking I'm horrible right now, but it's a simple thing to explain: I. can't. swim. Not a lick. It makes far more sense for me to find other help then to go in and drown us both.

Just because you can bandage a wound, doesn't mean you should- improper dressings can cause infections and be worse than no treatment. Properly preformed CPR can break ribs- improper CPR can be very dangerous, without being helpful.

In the specific scenario of your game- yes, it pretty much is, because it was designed that way. In real life, in general, no- because it's pretty hard to prove someone had the knowledge of someone in trouble, the means and training to help, and willingly chose not to with no reasoning to do so.