Theli

Does morality include inaction?
For instance, if you were put in a position where you had to kill a person to save 2 other people. All people in this example are faceless - no relatives or friends to you.
Would it be right to kill that one person to save the 2 others?
Would it be wrong not to?

tronvillain

Well, I would kill the one person to save the other two and would hope that someone else would too, but I could understand them being unable to.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Where's the "The person is not morally responsible either way, but it would be better if they could bring themselves to kill the one to save the others" option? I would not hold them responsible for murder, but I also would not hold them responsible for the deaths of the two people if they didn't kill the guy. Unfortunately, your choices force me to hold them responsible. No good.

-B

ju'iblex

if i was given the option of killing myself to save all three, then thats the one i would pick...

... but thats irrelevant.

Theli

Bumble Bee Tuna...

Is a person not morally responsible for killing another? Wouldn't you call that "wrong"?
Ofcourse, when I mention responsible, I'm not talking about responsibility to act or not to act. But be put to blame.


ju'iblex...

Perhaps, but commendable nontheless.

The Naked Mage

I didn't see a "Kill all three of them for putting you in that ethically-taxing position" option...

braces_for_impact

Allowing "evil" to take place by inaction is as bad as evil itself.

So says the Jedi code.



Edited because it's too early for me to be typing.

Mediancat

-- So are you arguing this is evil either way? Either you kill someone, or you let two people die. (I'm aware you might have been joking.)

For myself, assuming I had the time (and nothing in the scenario says I don't), I'd talk to the one person and explain the situation and see what they thought; then I'd talk to the two and get THEIR opinion, and see whoever was more/less willing to be the sacrifice, and go from there.

Rob aka Mediancat

Theli

Mediancat...

But that kind of defies the purpose of the question, as it in some way detracts the choice (and thus the moral judgement) from you, and it puts faces on the people in the example. You might value people differently after having conversed with them.

The idea with the question was if moral judgement can be put on a person for what he didn't do, given the chance, or if it only should be based on his actual actions.
Although both are obviously bad, someone will die either way, a choice must be made. And it's important to the example that you don't just chose, if the choice is to kill the one person you must act on it. If you chose not to, you do nothing.

Writer@Large

I cannot concieve of a situation where those are my only two options. That's why I hate "moral quandry" questions like this--it's bifurcation fallacy, the artificial limiting of choices. I could ask,

"Well, why can't I talk the guy down?"

And you might respond something like "Well, you already tried, and it failed."

And I'll ask, "Well, why didn't the two other people run while we were talking?"

And you'd respond, "They're tied up."

And I'll ask, "Am I tied up?"

And you'll respond, "No."

And I'll say, "Well, then I tackle the guy."

And you'll say, "You can't."

"Why?"

"Because you're not close enough."

"I would have gotten closer while I talked ... "

Etc, etc. It all gets too silly.

In general, however, yes, I would feel ethically obligated to act in the interest of the two (presumably innocent) people by harming the one (presumably not innocent, since he's apparently a killer) person. But then, think about this:

The one person is a state-appointed executioner. The two people he's going to "kill" are scheduled, leaglly pronounced executions of death row inmates, who between them have the blood of five on their hands.

--W@L