Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[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.

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.

I'm still having some trouble figuring it out because I don't see how it factors indifference into the scenario.
Are we saying that reasoning is irrelevant if the result is the same?

 

[Scars Unseen]

I guess it depends on where you are. In some places, you have no obligation to save someone, but can be sued into bankruptcy if you try, but suck at helping.