Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[Abomination]

Under no circumstances are you responsible. Your presence in the area is unrelated to them being placed in a fatal situation. If you were not in the immediate area and they died you would not even thought of to be held accountable. So why by happy coincidence you happen to be there should you suddenly be forced to choose between killing by inactivity and not killing by activity?

That being said, you'd be a hell of a jerk... but certainly no killer.

 

[LetalisK]

yes and no.

like i mentioned before, its a trolley problem hidden in star wars clothes.

you could argue that by actively "switching the tracks" in this case letting him live you are responsible for other peoples death that might occur.
by not healing him you just happen to witness faith take its course..

If you're going to appeal to what might happen in the future then you must also claim responsibility for the lives of people that died because he didn't live. Just saying, that sword cuts both ways.

 

[Gray Firion]

If you did not know how to help, you could still try and find someone who could. A bystander who does nothing to help while witnessing it in person, CAN and WILL be prosecuted for the inaction

And what law, specifically, are you referring to, because that sounds like nothing but your moral opinion on what the law should be, not what the law is.

No. Indeed I didn't specify it, but it is not my moral opinion. It is the law in my country, Portugal. I do not know the specific article, but it is enforced and is one of the laws the average citizen must have knowledge of to even earn a driver's license here.

 

[waj9876]

No, not really. You didn't kill them. You let them die. There is a distinction, though they're generally seen as the same thing.

Letting someone die is still a pretty horrible thing, it just isn't the same as killing them. You are knowingly choosing to let someone die. And unless that person will definitely put someone in danger if allowed to live, then yeah, letting them die is pretty horrible.

 

[furai47]

No no no... I'm sorry, but killing them is an act of putting them into the situation where they die. Not saving them is not killing them if it is, say, their own fault. It can't be. You weren't responsible. You're a witness to what DID kill them, which is not you, because you were just minding your own business-

Integra: BULL. FUCKING SHIT.

I was! I was just chillaxing like a baller, when...

...all of a sudden these shmucks kick in my door. One of them yelled out "GET ON YOUR KNEES!" and I responded with...

OT: I don't think it is. Someone/thing else must've already brought him to the point of death, you didn't. Then again, it's kinda like watching a person losing balance and falling over a balcony. You didn't push them of course meaning it's not pure black, but I would certainly say it's grey. A darker shade. Manslaughter basically.

 

[Winnosh]

If the reason that you do not try to save someone is because you WANT them to die then yes. It is the same as murder.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

Not saving someone's life is the same as killing them yourself only if you are somehow responsible for the person in question (parent, guardian), or responsible for them finding themselves in a threatening situation (throwing the guy into a raging river in the first place). Otherwise your inaction simply cannot be seen as murder (or manslaughter, or whatever the current buzzword is). That it may be seen this way in some countries is in my opinion a very serious problem with their legal systems.

I refuse to be held responsible for someone else's life just because I happen to be walking by. I haven't found myself in such a situation yet (IRL I mean), but I feel I might go either way - help them or just watch them die - depending on the circumstances.

 

[rosac]

can you save them but don't? manslaughter.

Did you know they required saving? If no, not your fault.

thats my view on it anyway

 

[Dirge Eterna]

Not exactly the same thing, but I can tell you that in real life the biggest regret I have is not being able to save someone from death.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I don't know, where they drowning? Also was there a dog involved?

We need another drowning thread.

 

[Amaror]

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]

Well in Germany at least you kinda have. It's called "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung", which means not taking an action to help someone in peril, and it is an offense.
It's also described in the wikipedia article you provided. It's not a hurtfull law however. You have to be in the position to help the person, meaning if you can't help because you can't see blood for example you're excused. And while providing help your protected from liability should you do something wrong. I should mention here that a course in basic first aid is mandatory in germany if your making a drivers license for example. So when you are involved in, or witness a car accident you have the required knowledge to help.

 

[OneCatch]

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned the trolley problems yet:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto a siding where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

I'm in favour of diverting to kill the one and save the five - both the one and the five are involved because it's a choice of one or the other

There are all kinds of variants, including:

2)instead of the siding having the option of dropping a weight onto the track to stop the train so as to save the five.I'm in favour of dropping the weight and saving the five

3)replacing the weight with a (very) fat bystander who can be pushed on the track. Not in favour of pushing the fat man because to do so forces him to become the solution to the problem - it would be morally admirable but not mandatory of him to jump

4)supposing that the fat bystander was the instigator of the problem. push him - it's his fault

5)Replacing the original siding with a loop, but having the fat man on the loop to stop the train. Divert the train - although he's being used to actively stop the train, he was involved anyway

6)Having the option of derailing the train and thus saving the five, but killing a bystander in a garden. derail the train - this one is difficult, because it's the same as pushing the innocent fatman. Derailing doesn't feel as bad though because it's passive

Anyway, to get more OT; letting someone die isn't the same as murder because it's passive. It's morally admirable to save people, but not doing so isn't the same as being the effector in their demise.
Just because the person dies either way doesn't mean the person is equally to blame.
By that logic, if you try to save someone but fail then that's also the same as murder.

 

[verdant monkai]

No its not the same or as bad. You didn't kill them you just let them die.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I don't know. It seems to depend a lot on context really.

Also, effort.

Deliberately killing someone takes effort. You have to go out of your way to do it, so you probably would have some reason or motivation for doing so. (even if it's as disturbed as 'for the fun of it' or something similar.)

Similarly, if someone is going to die soon without intervention... That's also a matter of effort. You have to go out of your way to do something about it. The effort involved may vary considerably depending on the situation, but it doesn't change the basic fact that you will need to make some kind of effort, no matter how small, to prevent a death.

We therefore have a comparison between making a deliberate effort to cause a death, vs making a deliberate effort to prevent one.

That's obviously somewhat of a different situation. Lack of effort in either case leads to the opposite result. (If you don't put in the effort, the person you're trying to kill will survive.)

The other thing is unpredictability. - it's all well and good to pose the question 'if you could save someone', but in reality many times it's not that simple.

If I saw a drowning child, would I actually be able to save them in the first place?

How about a fire? The risk here is such that not only could I fail to save the person, I could die in the process.

Or perhaps something as simple as a person having a heart attack, seizure, or other medical problem.
Not being trained in medicine or even first aid, there's many medical emergencies that you can make worse by doing the wrong thing.
Moving an accident victim with certain kinds of injuries could make matters much worse for them. - in which case, good intentions would make the situation worse if you don't know what you're doing.
You might say, call an ambulance, or something. Which is of course a good point, but what you're doing there is not so much saving someone's life as delegating the responsibility to someone else... (granted, if you didn't go to get help...)

Anyway, it's all a lot more complicated than it sounds on the surface.

Going out of your way to deliberately harm someone else is a lot less complicated to understand than the unpredictable effects of not making any effort to try and save someone else.

 

[WOPR]

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

So what's your opinion on my old highschools blood drive campaign?

They would go classroom to classroom and explain how donating blood can save up to three lives. They would then start telling you that "if you don't donate blood..." *show a gruesome slideshow of carcrash victims and other people dieing from bleeding out* "...You're killing three people" Then would have someone dressed as the grim reaper come in and take away three of the popular kids without saying a thing.

The campaign WAS incredibly effective... But good god that's shallow, it's like suddenlink "buy a landline" commercials...

 

[ellieallegro]

It's an impossible question since 99% of the time in a real life situation you are missing the contextual information.

The kid in the river is a good example: What if the kid fell into the river because they were fleeing the police after killing their parents? What if the kid grows up to be a genocidal dictator? What if the kid, through no fault of their own, was pushed into the river with the intent to kill? What if the kid was just being stupid and fell in on their own?

All good questions that, unless you're omniscient, won't have the answers to in that moment. Personally, I would save them if the danger to my life was small or non-existent because I don't have a family that depends on me (Hence my responsibility to survive is limited to my person). However, I don't think I should have the legal or moral obligation to do so because it is a personal choice.