I personally believe inaction equals support. If an innocent is being beaten in the street and you ignore it you're just as responsible as the aggressor. Granted if someone betrayed me a little inaction would probably take place depending on how bad 
Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?
- Thread starter 00slash00
- Start date
Recommended Videos
it really depends. personally i think that if its your job to save people, like a cop or doctor, if you just stand there and do nothing, or just walk away when you can clearly help the person thats dying/being killed then yah, its the same as killing them.
im looking at you Amurican doctor patient dumping on the streets ness. i live in Canada and i feel like those doctors should be fired, or punished for denying a human medical help if they want it and seriously need it.
im looking at you Amurican doctor patient dumping on the streets ness. i live in Canada and i feel like those doctors should be fired, or punished for denying a human medical help if they want it and seriously need it.
I use this as a guideline in these situations.
The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the
?master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so??
Note that if the ship is unable to render assistance, it is still obligated to inform the appropriate search and rescue services.
The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the
?master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so??
Note that if the ship is unable to render assistance, it is still obligated to inform the appropriate search and rescue services.
It depends on how immediate the threat of death is and if your intervention would have a lasting effect. For instance, pushing someone out of the way of a speeding bus is good. Barely prolonging the life of someone without a valuable future might be pointless or even cruel. There's grey areas, too, like if you could save someone from being murdered when they only have a week to live anyway. All we can know for sure is that utilitarians are wrong. Those guys actually think people should kill themselves and others to fight overpopulation and climate change.
It absolutely is the same. Making the concious choice to let them die is the same as actually killing them. Their life or death was in your hands and either way, you chose death. The only difference is that you didn't actually get the blood on your hands.
The only difference between them is a technical one. In one case, they die because we didn't act. In the other case, they died because we acted. It's a concious choice both ways however and thus, the same. I'm talking morally, I'm sure lawyers and the Courts will have many conflicting opinions. But yeah, they died because of our concious action/inaction, same result.
The only difference between them is a technical one. In one case, they die because we didn't act. In the other case, they died because we acted. It's a concious choice both ways however and thus, the same. I'm talking morally, I'm sure lawyers and the Courts will have many conflicting opinions. But yeah, they died because of our concious action/inaction, same result.
I guess I would argue that it's also morally wrong, but it's not the same thing. I mean, if you want to draw things out to a logical but ridiculous conclusion, everyone who chooses to buy a $3.00 latte every day rather than sending that money to some "Save The Children"-type charity could be seen as guilty of failing to save someone that it was in their power to save, but I'd still argue that's a sight different than gunning a child down with an assault weapon or some such.
No. It asked if it was the same as killing them. As I said, there is a difference between active and passive.RJ 17 said:
The best way to look at it is if you ceased to exist, would the person still die? If they die, then you didn't kill them.
according to the wiki page somone linked on duty to rescue, this is essentially what the law seems to implyKargathia said:
emt's and other professionals are considered to be skilled rescuers, and it is preferable that they attempt a rescue in cases where any skills may be necessary, you would not be expected as a civilian to walk into a burning building, or engage in a shootout to save someone, for example but professionals are assuming it is a reasonable thing for them to handle..
again if they are not equipped to handle it.. i don't know.. a radiation leak say.. i doubt it's going to be classed as murder or manslaughter if they don't commit suicide trying to help you.
if that's correct for law, it's pretty straightforward!
No, because in a situation where you don't save someone, you still haven't set in motion the events that lead to their death. So that's a lesser crime in my opinion. From there it scales with how easily you could've saved them, not considering the legal definition of murder.
No, it is not. You did not make any choices that led to the person's predicament, and "only" chose not to interfere with what is already happening.
At least in most scenarios, it is however not far behind in terms of how morally repugnant that choice is, and I would choose to make that choice illegal given the opportunity.
At least in most scenarios, it is however not far behind in terms of how morally repugnant that choice is, and I would choose to make that choice illegal given the opportunity.
Wrong, the key difference is knowledge of the plight. I'm not responsible for Starvin' Marvin's death over in Africa because I don't know who Starvin' Marvin is. I have absolutely no relation to them, and even if I donate all of my worldly possessions to charity, there is no assurance that said charity would help save one specific person, let alone thousands of them.FoolKiller said:
And your analogy is completely misguided. If someone is bleeding out in front of you, they're going to die. If you call an ambulance to come help them, there's a chance they might live. If they don't, it's not your fault, but at least you tried so you did not let them die. If you just walk past them, you're making a choice not to help them, as such they'd have no chance at surviving. Look at the context from which this question arises: a person is dying in front of you and you can easily save them if you wanted to. You can choose to save them, or you can choose to do nothing. Ever heard of criminal negligence? Or a better example would be "Good Samaritan laws"? If you see someone drowning in a pool and you're the only person there who knows who to swim but you refuse to do so - as the OP refused to save the character in the game - even though you easily could have, then it's your fault they died and depending on the area you live in you could actually be held legally responsible and not just morally.
If you ceased to exist, being the only person there who knows how to swim, they would have died anyways. But you don't make a choice to exist, you make a choice whether or not dive in and save the person. Doing nothing even though you could have is actively making a choice, and that choice is to do nothing.
I would just duly advise anyone that plans on visiting the state of California or residing there that the state government decided to remove your good Samaritan Legal protection. In other words if your assistance to an injured person causes additional injury you will held financially liable for it.
I'm also likely one of those "trained" & "certified" people that are obligated to assist. So if something happens when I'm down there, I will likely take off my glasses and throw them in a random direction so I can search for them. My reasoning is that, I'm legally blind without my glasses thus unable to render assistance.
I'm also likely one of those "trained" & "certified" people that are obligated to assist. So if something happens when I'm down there, I will likely take off my glasses and throw them in a random direction so I can search for them. My reasoning is that, I'm legally blind without my glasses thus unable to render assistance.
If you have the ability to save someone, then you should. If you don't, it's not your fault they died but you should have done something.
You should never interfere in a situation like that unless you know 100% that you'll be able to stop the aggressor and stop him. If they turned on you and you can't defend yourself, what then?Ryan Minns said:
Call the police, try to scare them off, but never physically interfere if you can't actually do anything to stop it.
Indeed you probably do. You lot follow the civil law system, I believe, just like most of Europe. And the civil law system is more strict about your legal duties in those circumstances. [footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)[/footnote]Roofstone said:
And in the first link that I listed, there's a section in there that mentions this:
"Many civil law systems, which are common in Continental Europe, Latin America and much of Africa impose a far more extensive duty to rescue. The only exclusion is that the person must not endanger his own life or that of others, while providing rescue."
Under the common law which is followed in most countries colonised by the English, including Australia, New Zealand and the US, there is generally no or very limited duty to rescue.
Not at all. Because even if saving them is completely trivial, if you were never present in the situation they would die anyways. You can definitely argue that it isn't morally right, but it's nowhere near on the same level as actively and intentionally causing their death.
The only circumstances where I would say it's the same as killing them is if it's agreed upon that you will do the action that will save them before they put themselves at risk, or if by profession you enlisted yourself to do that thing, like if someone is having a heart attack and you're a surgeon in a hospital full of surgeons that can also preform heart surgery, and you say you'll do the surgery and then you don't. That's pretty much murder.
The only circumstances where I would say it's the same as killing them is if it's agreed upon that you will do the action that will save them before they put themselves at risk, or if by profession you enlisted yourself to do that thing, like if someone is having a heart attack and you're a surgeon in a hospital full of surgeons that can also preform heart surgery, and you say you'll do the surgery and then you don't. That's pretty much murder.
