Poll: Poll: Responsibility trough inaction

[Ambitious Sloth]

Last week on September 5th I posted a poll giving two situations and asked which of them people would do. I had expected most would agree to one but not the the other. To my surprise it turned out that most people chose to do nothing in either situation claiming they they would rather not be held responsible. My question is should you be held responsible if you didn't do something to stop a catastrophe when you could have stopped it. Though the question is two fold and is broken into two parts: do acknowledge it, and do you accept it?

For those interested in the original poll here is the link: (Though this poll is not in the same context as it's predecessor.)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.138362?page=1

 

[BeeRye]

The original poll is a flawed concept I believe, but I could be mistaken.

The way it was explained to me was, a man takes you and nine others hostage. He says he will shoot all of you, unless you instead shoot one person, in which case he will let all the rest go.

Statistically, by killing one person you save nine lives. Morally you are still wrong. You have murdered someone.

If you refuse, he kills all of you. However you are not morally wrong here. He is morally wrong as he has murdered them. You have done nothing wrong.

Also you say

My question is should you be held responsible if you didn't do something to stop a catastrophe when you could have stopped it.

However, in the instances described by your poll you must harm other people. I think you must recognize a difference between not stopping a catastrophe when you could do so to noone's detriment and stopping a catastrophe while causing harm to someone else.

 

[Aardvark]

I'm oblivious to the goings on of things going on around me. By the time I notice something tragic, it's beyond too late.

Though there is a fine line between tragedy and comedy. It's somewhere about 10 feet from the actual event itself.

 

[Darkmaster127]

The original poll is a flawed concept I believe, but I could be mistaken.

The way it was explained to me was, a man takes you and nine others hostage. He says he will shoot all of you, unless you instead shoot one person, in which case he will let all the rest go.

Statistically, by killing one person you save nine lives. Morally you are still wrong. You have murdered someone.

If you refuse, he kills all of you. However you are not morally wrong here. He is morally wrong as he has murdered them. You have done nothing wrong.

Whilst i don't completely disagree with you here, it is an interesting scenario, based on whether you think killing one to save 9 is morally better than letting everyone die. I would argue it continues the existence of most human life, and so is the right choice given the situation, but is it the most moral. Personally, i don't think so. Yes, more people die this way, but you're not the one killing them.

However, what if i change the scenario a bit- What if there is a train travelling along tracks towards 9 people on the rails. You can change the path the train will take, by moving a switch. On this rail, is one person who will be killed instead. If you look at it, really you're still killing one to save 9 however most in the situation would happily make the switch (Myself included, though i would like to think i would also kill the '1' in the original situation).

I think the important difference is our role in the situation, we have a far more 'detached' role in the second situation not actually playing any part in the killing of the person. But actually, the situations are very similar.

 

[BeeRye]

Spoiler

The original poll is a flawed concept I believe, but I could be mistaken.

The way it was explained to me was, a man takes you and nine others hostage. He says he will shoot all of you, unless you instead shoot one person, in which case he will let all the rest go.

Statistically, by killing one person you save nine lives. Morally you are still wrong. You have murdered someone.

If you refuse, he kills all of you. However you are not morally wrong here. He is morally wrong as he has murdered them. You have done nothing wrong.

Whilst i don't completely disagree with you here, it is an interesting scenario, based on whether you think killing one to save 9 is morally better than letting everyone die. I would argue it continues the existence of most human life, and so is the right choice given the situation, but is it the most moral. Personally, i don't think so. Yes, more people die this way, but you're not the one killing them.

However, what if i change the scenario a bit- What if there is a train travelling along tracks towards 9 people on the rails. You can change the path the train will take, by moving a switch. On this rail, is one person who will be killed instead. If you look at it, really you're still killing one to save 9 however most in the situation would happily make the switch (Myself included, though i would like to think i would also kill the '1' in the original situation).

I think the important difference is our role in the situation, we have a far more 'detached' role in the second situation not actually playing any part in the killing of the person. But actually, the situations are very similar.

That is pretty much the situation described in the OP's original poll. I would argue that you can't say that you aren't actually playing a part in the killing of the person, given that the person would not die if you didn't throw the switch. I would have a very difficult time deciding whether or not to throw the switch. I don't feel it's my place to decide whose lives are worth saving.

Of course we can switch the situation up again. Some people would argue that saving the 9 others in exchange for the life of the lone man is the right thing to do. So we replace the lone man on the tracks with your significant other or child. Suddenly saving the greater number of people becomes less appealing doesn't it?