Ethics question and Responsibility

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I want to ask a question about responsibility and ethics.

If you have multiple choices at your disposal, I always believed that to be morally responsible for an action, you must have a capacity to choose amongst them. You can't be responsible for something you cannot do, because ethically, an ought implies a can. Now, you ought to complete your ethical duty if and only if it does not sacrifice a morally more significant factor in the interest of equality of consideration.

Now, from a consequentialist ethic, the morality of an action is defined by the consequences which stem from it, whether those sanctions are good or bad. THe individual who actively and consciously chooses the specific course of action must reap the consequences, no? Intent, however, can be used to gauge a specific, more refined level of sanction for the responsibility.

Now, say you have two choices, and one is inaction or refusal to act, and the other is active action. In many cases, both inaction and action are both deliberate, conscious choices made by an individual. If both inaction and action lead to the same consequences, and you know these consequences will happen or have a high probability of occuring, shoudl not not be morally responsible for those consequences? People keep telling me no, because inaction and action are not the same, but from a consequentialist ethic, this shouldn't matter if the consequences of both choices are the same and you know it. (Now this doesn't mean EVERY case of inaction and action will make the actor equally responsible on a minimal level). They seem to be creating an artificial barrier.

For example, if someone's choking, and you are fully able to help him with no comparable moral sacrifice to yourself, you ought to do it. If not, and no one else is around, you surely know the person will die of lack of oxygen or will at least suffer brain damage. If you simply watch him die and have no intent to help, then you ought to be responsible morally for his death, no? On the same token, if you were to go up to him and kill him, you ought be responsible as well, for in both cases, you knowingly choose courses of action that deliberately lead to his death. If intent and consequences are the same, what is really the difference?

I would appreciate your help. I have been reading a lot of ethics books recently on consequentialist, and the majority of them point me in the direction that both cases would be equally morally responsible for their actions. However, people are trying to tell me that the man who watches the guy die and does nothing is not responsible for the death, since the guy died of natural causes, but that sounds like a bullshit way of eschewing responsibility.

[Jaepheth]

It seems to me that the end result alone is insufficient to judge a course of action. If a person sets out to kill someone, they initiate the events that lead to death.

"and no one else is around" But why should it matter if they're the only one there? If, say, 30 people stand around or walk on by while a girl is being stabbed to death in the street, wouldn't they all be guilty of inaction?

Where is the line drawn? Is everyone who splurges on a fancy car or nicer dinner than they need guilty of something since that money could've been used to feed a hungry person who will now starve?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, it is good to bring that up about the cars. Eventually, you would naturally hit a point in which considering equal interests of independent units, you would be sacrificing something of moral significant moral interests. You can't save everyone, and you aren't expect to put yourself into ruin to try to do so. That wouldn't make society function. But, most people do with less and help more, probably more than double what most do now, and not really have many ill affects.

Of course, you wouldn't want to take it to the extrnme because of the above reason. Lots of people have jobs in non-necessities, and you can't possibly fit them all in necessites. That would have a counter-productive effect in the long run by destroying industry, etc. Can't donate much if you don't have jobs anyway.

So, I wouldn't say you are responsible for every inaction past the point at which you cannot do anything anymore or would likely cause a significant sacrifice of greater interest.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

PS: I forgot. Intent usually does have a value. I would think that someone who intentionally goes out and kills people would have, in the long run, a more detrimental impact on society, so if it continued, such behaviors would, as a rule of thumb, cause worse consequences overall. So they can be given different sanctions in that respect due to projections of average consequences.

But does the guy who watches get off scott free because he didn't physically kill the person?

[wolveraptor]

I don't believe the two men are equally responsible for her death, simply because choking doesn't always cause death. A guy who was inert, while an asshole and irresponsible, might still see the girl hack up the object and survive. On the other hand, killing her removes all possibility of her survival.

[DoctorPhanan]

"and no one else is around" But why should it matter if they're the only one there? If, say, 30 people stand around or walk on by while a girl is being stabbed to death in the street, wouldn't they all be guilty of inaction?

An interesting example, have you ever heard of Kitty Genovese? While it may be a sensationalized and highly exaggerated article it is the most widely used example of the bystander effect, which although is not a constant or without exception, has been noted in several other incidents.

In fact, the bystander effect may be far more common than one realizes, for instance: If you were walking in mid-afternoon, down a busy street and heard a car alarm go off behind you, would you really turn to find the source, and investigate the car for signs of tampering/vandalism? Most people wouldn't because they would place the responsiblity of such a check on those either facing or in close proximity to the car, but it is assumed that others heard, can see, or will report such vandalism/tampering.

Lets, say that it's the same situation, but late at night with nearly no people on the street. You hear the alarm, and would probably place an at least, cursory check for any individuals or causes for the alarm.

Back on topic:

But does the guy who watches get off scott free because he didn't physically kill the person?

Sadly true, because while he may be morally obligated to save the person, he is not legally obligated to attempt the perservation of life. I think that the situation, and circumstances do effect such a legal obligation, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no US law that would require someone to help another if capable, but I am hardly an expert. The closest that I found in the ten miniutes I researched this was Criminal Negligence but it would appear that it specifically cites the actions of individuals rather than, as it would apply to this situation, inactions that endanger the wellbeing of another person.

This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills.

If that is the standard: A reasonable person, that has claimed, or has been determined competent, takes an action that is so incorrect it is determined to be a crime, then they are legally responsible for the consequence of their action. Then I have a hard time believing that one should not be held legally responsible for inaction. And yet, I am loathe to claim so until I have seen an example or precedent that explicitly states that there is a legal responsibility rather than a merely moral one.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

An interesting example, have you ever heard of Kitty Genovese? While it may be a sensationalized and highly exaggerated article it is the most widely used example of the bystander effect, which although is not a constant or without exception, has been noted in several other incidents.

In fact, the bystander effect may be far more common than one realizes, for instance: If you were walking in mid-afternoon, down a busy street and heard a car alarm go off behind you, would you really turn to find the source, and investigate the car for signs of tampering/vandalism? Most people wouldn't because they would place the responsiblity of such a check on those either facing or in close proximity to the car, but it is assumed that others heard, can see, or will report such vandalism/tampering.

Lets, say that it's the same situation, but late at night with nearly no people on the street. You hear the alarm, and would probably place an at least, cursory check for any individuals or causes for the alarm.

I have not, no, but I will check it out. I did hear of the bystander effect, though, in my psychology courses I had earlier. It's really amazing the affect it has on people.

I was mainly refering to cases in which it was nearly certain that, if you did nothing, the person would die, but there are also cases in Practical Ethics which mention cases in which it is likely the person will die anyway. For example, Euthanasia. THe textbook points out that there's little instrinsic difference in the moral responsibility of medical professionals between active and passive euthanasia choices. This seems to be the dominant theme in bioethics today, at least from consequentialist perspectives. I have seen a few Kantians or religious leaders argue against it, but they tend to do follow a more rule based (negative sanction) apprach, the text calls it.

I think the text uses an analogy of the drowning baby in a fountain and the bathtub baby example.

1. If you are alone in your home and you see your baby in the tub, and he slips under, but you sit and watch (doing nothing) with the intent that it dies, although you are doing nothing that actively kills the baby, you would have equal minimal moral responsibility compared to someone who actively pushes the baby's head under the waterline. The same goes for the fountain baby, according to the two texts I got: If you are alone in a building see a baby drowning in a hall fountain, and you sit and watch, but do nothing, you are just as bad as if you walked up and stuck its head under. The only way they say you would not be ethically accountable is if you had no choice, didn't know about it, or would have to have sacrificed an equal portion.

The book then goes on to link the Euthanasia debate to this (the artificial line between passive and active killing) to cases in which people donate nothing to charity and spend all on themselves, knowing that 25% of the world lives in absolute poverty. It's much more complicated than I am saying now, so don't take my really vague explanation as the entire argument.

If you are interested, you should read these three texts, but the latter two in specific: Analysing MOral issues (has excellent statistics and facts), One World, and Practical Ethics, DoctorPahan.

[CarsonPalmer]

I would agree with both being equally morally responsible. However, as has been said, they are not both legally responsible, and it is not practical to do so, because of the various implications of making such a major change in the legal system.

[Nova Andromeda]

For example, if someone's choking, and you are fully able to help him with no comparable moral sacrifice to yourself, you ought to do it. If not, and no one else is around, you surely know the person will die of lack of oxygen or will at least suffer brain damage. If you simply watch him die and have no intent to help, then you ought to be responsible morally for his death, no? On the same token, if you were to go up to him and kill him, you ought be responsible as well, for in both cases, you knowingly choose courses of action that deliberately lead to his death. If intent and consequences are the same, what is really the difference?

--I'm only going to point out one consideration you have neglected and not actually answer the question.
-In the case of a person actively killing someone, they have created an additional circumstance to all the other circumstances in which a person may die (i.e., +1 death count). In the case of the bystander, they have not created any additional circumstances that lead to death (i.e., +0 death count). In the case of rescuer, they have removed a circumstance that would normally result in death (i.e., -1 death count). The point is that depending on your decision there are three possible outcomes and not two: increase the death rate, leave the death rate alone, or decrease the death rate.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

True, if you do nothing, you are not personally creating a death-rate increase, whereas you would if you went up in killed, but that seems rather minor in the grande scheme of thins, especially if someone's going to die anyway. It doesn't seem to have much intrinsic moral worth if you start from a persepctive that puts you in the position to maximize the best outcome (preferences/happiness) and minimize unnecessary negative outcomes. I think the point they are trying to make is that if you make a decision that allows the same negative conclusion in any act, it would be the wrong thing to do.

[Nova Andromeda]

True, if you do nothing, you are not personally creating a death-rate increase, whereas you would if you went up in killed, but that seems rather minor in the grande scheme of thins, especially if someone's going to die anyway.

--This is true only if the killer restricts his killing to people who are about to die for other reasons. If that isn't true the killer is almost certain to have a much higher "death count" than a guy that refuses to help others and he will seriously impact any effect he has on avg. life expectancy (unless he only kills old people). As far as moral imperitives go, I would rank a person's impact on avg. life expentancy as extremely high on the list.
-Even in the case you describe (the killer is only killing people on their death bed that he could otherwise save) the killer is gaining something from the victim without permission: fullfillment of his desire to kill. This is esspecially unfair in light of the fact that the killer was unwilling to give aid to the victim to begin with.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That is important to mention too, now that you brought it up. Intent isn't completely removed from consequentialist calculations. I would assume that someone who's intent to kill people as a career or something would, on average, produce worse conditions. The mentality isn't condusive to a functioning society, so that person could be condemned more, no?