Is Not Saving Someone the Same as Killing Them?

[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.

 

[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.