Philosophical question: Is there a difference between....

[elacsaplau]

…….killing and allowing someone to die (all else being equal in a given situation)?!

Any covid-house-bound philosophers out there?

 

[Peanuts20]

Legally there certainly is. for example there could well be a time when a doctor may take a view that further treatment may not work or have significant negative impact and instead, nature should be let take it course. That was a discussion I had with a doctor a few years about about my Dad where even if treatment worked, he would be alive but probably in a vegative state. We decided not to allow further treatment and he died a few hours later.

However ,define all things being equal?. I can't swim, if I let a drowning person drown as a result, is that the same as bashing them over the head with a stick?

 

[elacsaplau]

Hi Peanuts20,

Thank you for your reply. I wish you well and that your dad is at peace.

The scenario that I'm considering is along the following lines:

"Smith drowns his 6-year-old cousin in the bath by holding him under the water in order to inherit his fortune. Jones lets his 6-year-old cousin drown in the bath after he has slipped and hit his head, also to inherit his fortune. The cases are identical in terms of upshot and motive and the only difference seems to be that Smith killed his cousin whereas Jones let him die."

 

[Betsy Og]

If holds him under the water its murder (likely pre-meditated, especially given the motive). Allowing him to drown... in a moral sense just as bad. Could have easily saved him with no risk to self (as opposed to, say, diving into a flooded river). Its probably some version of manslaughter.

You should call up the UK soaps, regularly there's someone observing a victim who has just fallen off a scaffolding or through a rotten floor and they're weighing up the possibilities. & of course there's the Bernadette McCaliskey case where one batch of brits were willing to let them 'bleed it out' until another batch arrived.....

 

[elacsaplau]

Thanks for engaging, BetsyOg,

Just to tease this out further - are you saying that there is no moral difference whatsoever between Smith and Jones? Alternatively, if you believe that there is, to some extent, a moral difference - can you let me know what the difference is please?

 

[Betsy Og]

Smith caused the kid to die, Jones allowed him to die (when life viable, for personal gain). So, I take it back, not "just as bad", morally Smith is worse due to causation with intent (as opposed to accidental causation).

 

[elacsaplau]

Thanks Betsy Og,

I hope that you are happy to continue!! [There is a personal reason why I need to examine this issue but there is no need for you to call Tusla!]

More teasing out - on the understanding that you may well be right! As per the stated scenario....

I accept that Smith is a bad egg! His actions caused the death and his motive was to inherit the money.
but
Is Jones not equally bad? His inactions caused the death and his motive (as stated) was also to inherit the money.

After all, in each case, the motivations for and consequences of the cousin's drowning are identical. In what way is it morally different if this occurs because of an action or an inaction?

 

[Betsy Og]

Didn't we have a chat like this before... about DNR orders ...... you're on a watchlist, that's all I'm saying.

Causation is the only difference. Surely the one who intentionally causes it is more guilty? But for Smith the child would've been fine. Jones didn't cause the problem, just chose not to fix it - which is obv very bad but ..... maybe.... then again.... (I'm not v good at this - I think we Kill 'em All - let God sort 'em out).

 

[Leo]

Is Jones not equally bad? His inactions caused the death and his motive (as stated) was also to inherit the money.

As there is no legal duty to rescue in Irish law, the state very clearly interprets a deliberate action causing death to be significantly worse than failing to act to preserve life.

Beyond that, you're getting into a pure morality exercise, where these is no one right answer as perceptions will differ.

 

[elacsaplau]

Hi Leo,

I need to address the associated legal implications later.

For now, I would like to focus on the morality of the issue. I apologise that I didn't make this clear from the outset.

I have spent much of the morning reading various papers on this. I guess I'm just trying to see if any AAMer has anything specific that they wish to add in all this. To put some more flesh on this particular bone, just google this paper from which the scenario above was extracted....[direct link doesn't work?]

Killing and letting die: a defensible distinction​

Will Cartwright

 

[Leo]

Looks like sign-in is required for that document, link above includes the token generated for your sign-in, so I have removed it.

 

[cremeegg]

The Catholic moral tradition was that we are responsible primarily for our own actions, Smith did something wrong, Jones on the other hand failed to do something good.

We all fail to do good things that are within our power all the time, society generally does not condemn us for this.

 

[elacsaplau]

Fair enuff, Cremeegg……….but.....

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing!?

 

[cremeegg]

Fair enuff, Cremeegg……….but.....

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing!?

So what, the question was, 'is there a difference between killing and allowing some one to die'. The answer is yes.

The question "How can we save the cousin" is an entirely different question

 

[Baby boomer]

If Jones is under a legal (contractual or statutory) duty to act, he is guilty of an offence. (Not sure if it's murder or manslaughter.) So, if Jones has agreed to babysit, or is in loco parentis, he is guilty. Or if Jones was a paid Nanny or au pair, s(he) is also guilty.

If Jones is a casual passer-by, there is no legal duty to act and no offence is committed. But, he'd be one callous b@stard.

 

[elacsaplau]

Thanks Baby boomer,

What I really am looking to explore is the morality of all of this.

I need to address the associated legal implications later.

For now, I would like to focus on the morality of the issue. I apologise that I didn't make this clear from the outset.

 

[Leo]

What I really am looking to explore is the morality of all of this.

Not sure AAM is going to provide you with much there, and even if a few posters share their personal perception of the grades or right or wrong, I don't see what that gets you. The views of a few people won't give you reliable insight into the broader societal view.

 

[mathepac]

In the first case Smith is guilty of an act of commission, his actions brought about death.

In the second case Jones is guilty of an act of omission, legally and /or morally. He is an adult, his nephew is a child, a blood-relation and absent any cognitive or physical disability, he has a duty of care to the child as an adult relative.

 

[Baby boomer]

In the second case Jones is guilty of an act of omission, legally and /or morally. He is an adult, his nephew is a child, a blood-relation and absent any cognitive or physical disability, he has a duty of care to the child as an adult relative.

Morally, yes; legally no. Jones has no legal duty merely because he is an adult relative per se. If he voluntarily assumes responsibility, he must continue with it. If he is a legal guardian, he also has a duty to intervene. If he just happens to wander into a relatives house, there is no legal duty to assume responsibility for the children (relatives or not) therein.

It's one of those (many?!) areas where the law and morality sharply diverge.

 

[elacsaplau]

The views of a few people won't give you reliable insight into the broader societal view.

Tá sé sin ceart ach…….isn't that broadly true of many threads in the cyberworld and many chats in de real world?

In the first case Smith is guilty of an act of commission, his actions brought about death.
In the second case Jones is guilty of an act of omission, legally and /or morally.

Agreed Mathepac. I'm only concerned, for now, with the morality aspect - (we all know the law is an ass anyway!)
So, in terms of the morality - is the behaviour of Smith & Jones equally reprehensible or is one worse than the other and if so, in what way precisely?