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.
Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?
- Thread starter 00slash00
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Caiphus said:
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.
I'm surprised that no one's mentioned the trolley problems yet:
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what's your opinion on my old highschools blood drive campaign?Daystar Clarion said:
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...
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.
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.
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.Abandon4093 said:
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.
I'm not responsible for the well being of strangers; so to me choosing to not save someone wouldn't make me a murderer.
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.Amaror said:
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.
Look 14 posts above you.OneCatch said:
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.
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.
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.
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.Abandon4093 said:
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.Abandon4093 said:
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.Evil Smurf said:
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.
Checked the entire thread to see for mentions, apparently missed the two posts that did mention it!Lovely Mixture said:
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.