Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[WOPR]

I honestly think I wouldn't have been able to stop laughing at the sheer audacity of that.

I'd then have made sure to tell them that if they'd have simply asked me to donate blood, I'd gladly have done so, but because they attempted to emotionally blackmail me, 3 people were going to die.

That's more or less what I ended up doing. (I wouldn't have donated blood either way though... *trypanophobic*) But still just on the moral basis of it I went out of my way to not donate blood and actually redirected as many people as I could to go to the blood drive at the local college instead of the high schools.

 

[Dismal purple]

The philosophical reasoning is irrelevant, I would feel horrible if I didn't help someone.

§

 

[Acton Hank]

I wouldn't say so.

I'm not responsible for the well being of strangers; so to me choosing to not save someone wouldn't make me a murderer.

 

[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]

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.

Oh sure. And like I mentioned in a post on the previous page, you guys don't follow the common law. Like most of continental Europe, you follow civil, or civilian law. Those countries colonised by the British, such as the US, Australia etc, follow the common law.

Probably the biggest conflict can be seen in Canada. Since the colonisation of Canada was a "joint" effort by the French and the English, they have a duty to rescue in the laws of Quebec, but no duty in the law of Canada as a whole.

To be honest, I agree with you lot. I think there should be some general duty to rescue, as long as there is no personal danger to the rescuer.

I also, however, don't think that they punishment for failing to help should be as harsh as for actively putting a victim in danger. But there should be some punishment.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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

Look 14 posts above you.

I'm a little confused by the relevance of it though because it's not an immediate situation. You aren't instantly choosing the death of another person by saving one person in this case.

 

[Narfo]

Letting someone die or killing them (with no details for either)the same thing?

Speaking in terms of technicality and literal-ness: No, they are two different choices, where one relies on inaction and the other relies on nothing but action.

Speaking in terms of "is one worse than the other?" Again, no, because both require you to be, and end up as, a callous bastard.

Anything more would require details and discussion.

 

[Evil Smurf]

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

We need another drowning thread.

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear?

Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

 

[aelreth]

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear? Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Based on my time serving at a United States Coast Guard Station I would say, that if it is raining acid and fire, it's unsafe to go outside because it would cause undue risk to the safety of myself, my crew and those that would have to rescue me if I too became a casualty.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

If the water is rough enough to make a polar bear (who is a great swimmer) at risk for drowning, it's highly unlikely that there exists a swimmer in the proximity of such strength to rescue the person. Besides you have to evaluate risks before you go in.

Would you enter the water if there isn't already another person present? You shouldn't. If you go down, who rescues you? Don't be part of the next circus that causes a half dozen people to leap down a well to their deaths to save a chicken.

 

[Evil Smurf]

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear? Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Based on my time serving at a United States Coast Guard Station I would say, that if it is raining acid and fire, it's unsafe to go outside because it would cause undue risk to the safety of myself, my crew and those that would have to rescue me if I too became a casualty.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

If the water is rough enough to make a polar bear (who is a great swimmer) at risk for drowning, it's highly unlikely that there exists a swimmer in the proximity of such strength to rescue the person. Besides you have to evaluate risks before you go in.

Would you enter the water if there isn't already another person present? You shouldn't. If you go down, who rescues you? Don't be part of the next circus that causes a half dozen people to leap down a well to their deaths to save a chicken.

That never happened, right?

 

[aelreth]

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear? Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Based on my time serving at a United States Coast Guard Station I would say, that if it is raining acid and fire, it's unsafe to go outside because it would cause undue risk to the safety of myself, my crew and those that would have to rescue me if I too became a casualty.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

If the water is rough enough to make a polar bear (who is a great swimmer) at risk for drowning, it's highly unlikely that there exists a swimmer in the proximity of such strength to rescue the person. Besides you have to evaluate risks before you go in.

Would you enter the water if there isn't already another person present? You shouldn't. If you go down, who rescues you? Don't be part of the next circus that causes a half dozen people to leap down a well to their deaths to save a chicken.

That never happened, right?

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-01.html

Unfortunately it did.

The chicken lived though.

 

[Evil Smurf]

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear? Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Based on my time serving at a United States Coast Guard Station I would say, that if it is raining acid and fire, it's unsafe to go outside because it would cause undue risk to the safety of myself, my crew and those that would have to rescue me if I too became a casualty.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

If the water is rough enough to make a polar bear (who is a great swimmer) at risk for drowning, it's highly unlikely that there exists a swimmer in the proximity of such strength to rescue the person. Besides you have to evaluate risks before you go in.

Would you enter the water if there isn't already another person present? You shouldn't. If you go down, who rescues you? Don't be part of the next circus that causes a half dozen people to leap down a well to their deaths to save a chicken.

That never happened, right?

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-01.html

Unfortunately it did.

The chicken lived though.

That's good at least.

 

[OneCatch]

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

Look 14 posts above you.

I'm a little confused by the relevance of it though because it's not an immediate situation. You aren't instantly choosing the death of another person by saving one person in this case.

Checked the entire thread to see for mentions, apparently missed the two posts that did mention it!

Anyway, in a roundabout way I was making a connection between how passive an action is and how culpable that makes you.

In the variants of the trolley problem a lot of people (myself included) will choose to redirect the train onto a loop, killing the fat man to stop it, but will not push the fat man off the bridge.
That's because pushing the fat man is an active choice, whereas redirecting the train isn't so much. Even if the end result is the same (the fat man is killed to stop the train), the activity/passivity of the action does seem to make an emotional difference to people.

I'd say that the same distinction is present in the OP's question. Because you aren't actively killing the person it's not the same, even if they die either way.

 

[Evil Smurf]

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

We need another drowning thread.

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear?

Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

You monster, the polar bear was clearly injured by acid and Fire. You just killed a polar bear... Are you proud of yourself?

So I'm drowning. Who do you save, me or the polar bear? Also it's Raining acid and Fire.

Based on my time serving at a United States Coast Guard Station I would say, that if it is raining acid and fire, it's unsafe to go outside because it would cause undue risk to the safety of myself, my crew and those that would have to rescue me if I too became a casualty.

Polar Bears are very strong swimmers, and assuming that you are both located close to each other and I'm on a boat, it would not make sense for me to jump in the water (life guards confirm this). I would save you as I'm pretty sure boats only have human rescue equipment.

If the water is rough enough to make a polar bear (who is a great swimmer) at risk for drowning, it's highly unlikely that there exists a swimmer in the proximity of such strength to rescue the person. Besides you have to evaluate risks before you go in.

Would you enter the water if there isn't already another person present? You shouldn't. If you go down, who rescues you? Don't be part of the next circus that causes a half dozen people to leap down a well to their deaths to save a chicken.

You monster-er. You just killed me and a polar bear... And possibly a chicken.

Whom would you save?

 

[Fdzzaigl]

It is not the same thing, not chosing to save someone is just that.

However, willfully letting someone die when you clearly have the chance to save them (without putting yourself or others at risk) is also a rather dark thing to do regardless.

 

[hawkeye52]

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.

Well it's manslaughter if you had a duty of care over the victim in a professional or assumed capacity. Without a duty of care you have no legal obligation to save them at all. That's one of the main things that separates the British Criminal system from the French one. The lack of a good samaritan law

 

[Therarchos]

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]

That really depend upon country. Most countries in Europe will pass lawfull judgement on your ass if you fail to help someone who you could have helped. At least as long as it doesn't put your life in danger.

 

[Henkie36]

No. If you see someone drowning, but you can't swim, what would be the point in trying to save him? That way, there would be two moms who would receive news they lost a child instead of one.