Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[FalloutJack]

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...

 

[lunavixen]

It's killing them by omission. But, that being said, killing someone and murder can actually be separated into two different categories, depending on whether the Mens Rea (the mentality and capability of murder as well as intent) for murder can be proved [on the provision that you wounded the person in the first place, otherwise it's more likely to result in charges of, Accesory to Murder or Aiding and Abetting after the fact](i.e. You didn't want to save them and willingly let them die despite it being within your ability to save them [Murder], vs. you couldn't save them for some reason [no crime]).

TLDR: It's all dependent on context and intent.

By the way, forgive my odd terminology, I was trying to break down the terms into basic ones that people without a study in law can follow.

 

[Gray Firion]

In the end, if you let a man die when you could have helped, while you are no murderer, you're also no better than one either. Because you didn't stop it when you could, you were complicit in the murder. This is enforced by Law: if you have the capacity to help someone in deadly distress, you must help.

Not really. Someone with special training to help has to, but a regular bystander is not, and even then the only thing that you can be punished with in most places is a lawsuit, not jailtime.

As for you being as bad as the murdurer, no, you aren't anywhere near as bad.

You may be heartless for not helping, but you didn't contribute to their death, and a traitor isn't worth helping anyway.

The entire OT part I wrote, was made on the following distinction: Theoretically, reasons, circumstances and the people involved differ. But the Practical end result is the same: someone died.

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.

No, you're not a murderer. No, you're not as bad as one. Yes, if through your actions you can find help for an ailing person, you have to find help. Yes, you're complicit in murder if you knowingly refuse to help (or find help) to someone in deadly peril. Whether the person is a traitor, a doctor, a criminal, a biologist, a murderer, Whatever, it is not up to you to just decide a death is justified. You are no Judge, no Jury and you're trying ever so hard not to be Executioner either.

 

[Ryan Minns]

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.

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?

Call the police, try to scare them off, but never physically interfere if you can't actually do anything to stop it.

So you mean like... perform an action? Like, not be inactive but actually do something? So? Action?

 

[DoPo]

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.

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?

Call the police, try to scare them off, but never physically interfere if you can't actually do anything to stop it.

So you mean like... perform an action? Like, not be inactive but actually do something? So? Action?

Not all action is good action. Technically, going and helping beat the guy is also an action. You wouldn't call that helping, though. Help does have requirements - if your action, as sincere as they might be, don't help (and they could, indeed, make stuff worse) that's not exactly helping, either.

 

[Greg White]

Whether the person is a traitor, a doctor, a criminal, a biologist, a murderer, Whatever, it is not up to you to just decide a death is justified. You are no Judge, no Jury and you're trying ever so hard not to be Executioner either.

In this we have a difference in opinion.

A traitor is a traitor, no matter how you look at it, and is certainly not deserving of help.

He can live with whatever cards fate has dealt him.

 

[miso2002]

The world's not black and white so no not saving someone is not the same as killing them, it's just that choosing not to interfere in something that's already happening. Depending on the circumstances it could be an evil decision, but it's still not the same thing as murder.

You still are making a choice, though. So if we say murder is choosing the death of an individual than it would be murder. If we said that murder was creating the scenario to kill someone than it wouldn't.

 

[Olas]

I'd say it depends on how much activity is required to save the person. If you could save someone's life by pushing a button and chose not to I'd say it's basically murder, however if it's a person trapped on the third floor of a burning building I wouldn't look down on you for not running in to save them.

Everything in between is basically a shade of gray.

 

[DugMachine]

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.

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?

Call the police, try to scare them off, but never physically interfere if you can't actually do anything to stop it.

So you mean like... perform an action? Like, not be inactive but actually do something? So? Action?

Well a police call isn't going to save this person's life if they're about to be beaten to death. And I wouldn't be jumping between them. Of course take action but I'm just saying you shouldn't interfere physically if there is a fight going on most of the time.

 

[Azure23]

I was always taught growing up that doing nothing was a certain kind of choice. I'm sure everyone here has heard of the bystander effect and in my own opinion it's the single most disgusting phenomena around. If someone is in trouble, right in front of you, do something. Call the goddamn cops if you don't want to get personally involved. The whole idea of "it's not my problem" fucking sickens me. Now I'm not aiming all this vitriol at the OP, he's playing a video game, he can do what he wants. But if that situation occurred in real life then yes, you would have killed that person. Maybe you didn't cause the injury that had him bleeding to death, but by not helping him you made a conscious decision that resulted in his death.

 

[LetalisK]

The world's not black and white so no not saving someone is not the same as killing them, it's just that choosing not to interfere in something that's already happening. Depending on the circumstances it could be an evil decision, but it's still not the same thing as murder.

You still are making a choice, though. So if we say murder is choosing the death of an individual than it would be murder. If we said that murder was creating the scenario to kill someone than it wouldn't.

The thing is, people use the latter definition, because that's the actual definition of homicide, with murder being a specific, premeditated form of it. The former definition isn't murder; it's making a choice that results in someone's death, which everyone is guilty of because none of us are busily giving our money away to starving orphans.

Those are two different ethical issues. Not only is there no immediate and present danger in the latter, but you're trying to compare committing oneself to a specific lifestyle choice with acting in the moment.

If you were in a situation where saving someone's life was something incredibly doable with little to no harm or inconvenience to yourself, and chose not to, you're certainly worthy of scorn and hatred, but don't compare that to murder.

But someone died because of what you chose to do. You decided that person should die. I don't think letting someone die is murder, since murder implies expending effort in the killing, but it's no less morally reprehensible. Mind you, this is coming from someone who in reality would probably let someone die given certain circumstances. I'm completely aware I'm subject to the double standard too.

 

[likalaruku]

Well, some lawyers have claimed that in a court of law, & the greasiest ones won.

 

[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