Should individuals be held responsible for their inaction?

[wegs]

In most cases you aren't under any legal obligations to report a crime. Their may be some exceptions (depending on the local laws). If you are a medical worker and you see evidence of child abuse as you are examining a child there may be a law that requires reporting that.

You can't "aide and abet" a crime (help a criminal commit a crime or help him get away from the police).

There has to be a legal obligation though or there is no crime and, in general, there is no legal obligation.

How about the legal obligation that the Catholic Church had (as one example) to report abuse to the proper authorities? (Police) Instead, it turned a blind eye and let the abuse continue. If you saw a colleague physically harming another colleague, would walking away, pretending that you didn’t see it, be a crime?

 

[Michael 345]

Why then, if someone were to tell you that he/she murdered someone, and you chose to not go to the police with that info, would that be considered a crime? I'm not disagreeing with your premise, but there seems to be some legal contradictions out there.

Fairly sure in Australia it is a crime not to report such a serious crime

Defence could be thought was joking

No sure that would fly

If you don't report serious crime you become part of the crime with "knowledge after the fact"

 

[wegs]

Fairly sure in Australia it is a crime not to report such a serious crime

Defence could be thought was joking

No sure that would fly

If you don't report serious crime you become part of the crime with "knowledge after the fact"

I would concur with this, not only from a moral view, but legal one. If I see someone leave a bar who is clearly drunk, and my gaze follows him/her to their car ...watching him/her speed off, I’m no better than that he/she, for doing nothing.

But, that wouldn’t be a crime. Perhaps it extends into criminal activity, the moment you are in a position of “boss,” or “overseer?” Or even colleague.

If you know of someone who commits a felony, yet say nothing, you are just as guilty. Court cases are filled with situations like this.

 

[Seattle]

How about the legal obligation that the Catholic Church had (as one example) to report abuse to the proper authorities? (Police) Instead, it turned a blind eye and let the abuse continue. If you saw a colleague physically harming another colleague, would walking away, pretending that you didn’t see it, be a crime?

No, it's not a crime. There is no law making that a crime.

This is an easy concept. Where there is legal responsibility, it is a crime. Where there is no legal responsibility, it's not a crime. Morally, it's different of course (though that is subjective).

 

[Michael 345]

If I see someone leave a bar who is clearly drunk, and my gaze follows him/her to their car ...watching him/her speed off, I’m no better than that he/she, for doing nothing.

I ride a motorcycle. If I see someone in a car on a mobile phone, I memorise the car number and report it on the non urgent police number

I have also reported a parked 50cc scooter plate to the police

It had a bicycle helmet which looked kid size. Two points here

You are allowed to ride a 50cc scooter on your car licence but you are not allowed to carry a passenger

If you do have a motorcycle licence you can carry a passage as long as over age 9

But not allowed to use bicycle helmet as motorcycle helmet at anytime

 

[billvon]

either way, at what point does our own personal safety come before helping another? do we risk helping another, at the risk of our own peril?

Legally it is always OK to avoid risk by not helping someone.

Morally I am of two minds about it. I'm willing to incur a small to moderate amount of personal risk to help someone - but at the same time every instructor certification and emergency medicine class I have been in emphasizes to ensure your personal safety before you help anyone, because the odds of you getting hurt trying to help someone are very high (just looking at the history of such things.)

 

[Seattle]

In rescue class (scuba) they make sure that you don't turn a rescue of one person into a rescue of two people.

If you see someone rob a bank and do nothing, you aren't as morally guilty as they are (obviously). We aren't cops, if we aren't in a position of having a legal obligation to help then anything you do is optional.

I can see someone with a flat tire changing their tire without stopping to help. Maybe they will get hit by passing traffic if I don't stop to help direct traffic. Or maybe they won't. It's my choice as to whether I stop.

I may be the one who gets hit by traffic. Is that a smart choice?

 

[Michael 345]

In rescue class

Yes that is taught in many situations

First aid courses run by the ambulance service I drove for about 4 years caution if you come across a road accident make sure you don't become a patient

I may be the one who gets hit by traffic. Is that a smart choice?

It is personal assessment and unique to each situation

Morally I am of two minds about it. I'm willing to incur a small to moderate amount of personal risk to help someone - but at the same time every instructor certification and emergency medicine class I have been in emphasizes to ensure your personal safety before you help anyone, because the odds of you getting hurt trying to help someone are very high (just looking at the history of such things.)

Classic examples are the number of people who drown trying to save others drowning

 

[wegs]

Legally it is always OK to avoid risk by not helping someone.

Morally I am of two minds about it. I'm willing to incur a small to moderate amount of personal risk to help someone - but at the same time every instructor certification and emergency medicine class I have been in emphasizes to ensure your personal safety before you help anyone, because the odds of you getting hurt trying to help someone are very high (just looking at the history of such things.)

That makes sense, and personal safety should be a priority. But, when it comes to protecting the interests of companies, religious organizations, for example - the idea that protecting the organization over reporting criminal behavior to the proper authorities, has been what has happened in the cover ups within the Catholic Church and other religious organizations. If children are harmed, and people are reporting that to you because you are in a position to report the perps, and you do nothing, that is illegal. That is why the Church has been going through endless litigation over the years.

So, in some cases, it can be seen as merely a moral dilemma, but in some, we have a legal responsibility to do the right thing.

 

[Seattle]

That makes sense, and personal safety should be a priority. But, when it comes to protecting the interests of companies, religious organizations, for example - the idea that protecting the organization over reporting criminal behavior to the proper authorities, has been what has happened in the cover ups within the Catholic Church and other religious organizations. If children are harmed, and people are reporting that to you because you are in a position to report the perps, and you do nothing, that is illegal. That is why the Church has been going through endless litigation over the years.

So, in some cases, it can be seen as merely a moral dilemma, but in some, we have a legal responsibility to do the right thing.

It is illegal if you are employed by the Catholic Church, otherwise it isn't illegal.

 

[river]

It is illegal if you are employed by the Catholic Church, otherwise it isn't illegal.

The damage done is not that hard to understand

The damage to the individual , in any abusive home , is lonely and fearful

 

[James R]

Here are two hypothetical situations.

1. There is a train rapidly approaching a switch point on the tracks. You are standing beside the control for the switch (some distance away) and you see a person standing on the line, beyond the switch point but in the path of the train. You see that the person is unaware of the approaching train, which will kill the person if it hits them. However, the switch is currently set so that the train will take the track that the person is not standing on. You flip the switch, the train changes tracks and kills the person.

2. The situation is exactly the same as before, except that this time you notice that the switch is set so that the train will take the track that the person is standing on. You choose not to touch the switch control, the train stays on its previous course and kills the person.

Question: is your level of moral culpability for the person's death the same in both scenarios, or different? Assume that in both cases, the controls were easily accessible to you and you were aware of the consequence of changing or not changing the position of the switch.

 

[Seattle]

Here are two hypothetical situations.

1. There is a train rapidly approaching a switch point on the tracks. You are standing beside the control for the switch (some distance away) and you see a person standing on the line, beyond the switch point but in the path of the train. You see that the person is unaware of the approaching train, which will kill the person if it hits them. However, the switch is currently set so that the train will take the track that the person is not standing on. You flip the switch, the train changes tracks and kills the person.

2. The situation is exactly the same as before, except that this time you notice that the switch is set so that the train will take the track that the person is standing on. You choose not to touch the switch control, the train stays on its previous course and kills the person.

Question: is your level of moral culpability for the person's death the same in both scenarios, or different? Assume that in both cases, the controls were easily accessible to you and you were aware of the consequence of changing or not changing the position of the switch.

No, of course not. A non-action isn't the same as an action. In one case your action caused his death.
In the other case, potentially, several other actions caused his death (including his own carelessness) and the train engineer's actions.

That's not to say that you shouldn't save him if it is within your own power, with no harm to yourself but then again, we all know this.

 

[billvon]

Here are two hypothetical situations.

1. There is a train rapidly approaching a switch point on the tracks.

Ooh ooh, a trolley problem derivative! In the above case the issues are not identical. Taking an action to kill someone is murder; not taking an action to save someone is, at best, negligence*.

(* - unless, of course, it is your job to flip the switch, and/or you have been planning to kill the person in that manner.)

 

[wegs]

It is illegal if you are employed by the Catholic Church, otherwise it isn't illegal.

Gotcha, I see where you’re coming from, now.

 

[James R]

No, of course not. A non-action isn't the same as an action. In one case your action caused his death.

In both cases, your choice played a part in his death. The only difference is that the first example involves action, while the second involves inaction. Failing to flip the switch to save the person, when you could easily do it, surely involves some level of moral culpability, wouldn't you say?

In the other case, potentially, several other actions caused his death (including his own carelessness) and the train engineer's actions.

All those things were also involved in the first case, too.

That's not to say that you shouldn't save him if it is within your own power, with no harm to yourself but then again, we all know this.

Ah, but most people would probably agree with you that you are more blameworthy in the first scenario than in the second. The question is: why?

Ooh ooh, a trolley problem derivative! In the above case the issues are not identical. Taking an action to kill someone is murder; not taking an action to save someone is, at best, negligence*.

In case 1, your action was a proximate cause of the person's death. In case 2, your inaction was a proximate cause of the person's death.

The question is: why do we think that action attracts more moral culpability than inaction?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

If you saw a colleague physically harming another colleague, would walking away, pretending that you didn’t see it, be a crime?

your question does not have a simple legal answer.

people seem to often confuse laws with moral ideologies.
moral ideologies have been deliberately confused with laws by the conservative US right wing to mask them trying to social engineer their religion into society against the US constitution
"keep church and state separate".

been going on for decades.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Classic examples are the number of people who drown trying to save others drowning

Question: is your level of moral culpability for the person's death the same in both scenarios, or different? Assume that in both cases, the controls were easily accessible to you and you were aware of the consequence of changing or not changing the position of the switch.

Politicians allowing people to die of terrorism (doing nothing is not acceptable)
Politicians allowing children to commit suicide (doing nothing is expected)

people are a strange bunch thats for sure

and then what makes the swing voters 'vote in' the politicians ?
tax cuts for them of any amount as long as they get a tiny tax cut(be they rich or very very rich)

 

[billvon]

In both cases, your choice played a part in his death. The only difference is that the first example involves action, while the second involves inaction. Failing to flip the switch to save the person, when you could easily do it, surely involves some level of moral culpability, wouldn't you say?

Some, yes. You could call it negligence if you tried REALLY hard to make a case for it; you might even get someone to believe you. You could not call it murder. Pulling the trigger is different than deciding not to tackle someone to move them out of the line of fire.

The question is: why do we think that action attracts more moral culpability than inaction?

Because people are responsible for their actions, which are by definition limited. They are not responsible for their inactions, which by definition are unlimited.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

US culture around the choosing of a president is quit a good example.
the title of "commander in chief" and all the war talk by those who have no military training, claiming they are really the best person for Geo-strategic planning and such like seems quite odd.

the question seems to be raised like a village idiot asking the other village idiots who they think the best idiot will be for being idiot leader.

the tired old premise of men being better at being a military strategist than a women is still walked out and paraded like a bundle of idiots in suits among some groups of idiots.

surely the commander in chief by default of the moral question of the thread is accountable for all things ?

yet they seem to pick and choose and run away from and make other people the patsy for things.
case and point of the alt-right tin foil hat brigade saying Hilary is guilty for not being the military general in Benghazi and then tagging on the use of a secure server for communication and saying that makes her a criminal.

soo many crazy people seem to be taken quite seriously by soo many idiots.

all of the military commanders in the entire US military by default would be equally guilty of the deaths in Benghazi embassy based on the many and common moral ideologies that many seem to think should be the rule of law.

its like rummaging through a box of sharp nails with bare hands trying to have a sane conversation about these type of subjects most of the time