Is inaction morally wrong?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 6:21 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 4:27 pm
And yet you say the other 3 officers did not wrong by doing nothing?
Correct. I don't necessarily require others to act as I would.
Have you not heard of duty of care?
Have you never heard of joint enterprise?
Surely those other officers were equally responsible for the arrest in the first place, and so were responsible for the care of their prisoner?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 3rd, 2020, 9:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 6:21 pm

Correct. I don't necessarily require others to act as I would.
Have you not heard of duty of care?
Have you never heard of joint enterprise?
Surely those other officers were equally responsible for the arrest in the first place, and so were responsible for the care of their prisoner?
Again, in my opinion they had a professional duty to stop the actions of Chauvin, but I don't consider their inaction immoral, I wouldn't make inaction illegal, and more broadly, I'd have no conspiracy laws.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by evolution »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 9:34 am If I were the person who was in the position of filming Chauvin, by the way, I wouldn't have merely stood there videoing. I would have moved in and pushed him off of Floyd.
LOL So, are you saying that you would have moved in, pushed four police officers away, and prevented those four officers from fulfilling what they see as their professional duty?
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 9:34 am That surely would have gotten me arrested or worse, but that's an acceptable trade-off in my view to watching a policeman stupidly kill someone.
Why do you not move in and STOP the killing of the people that you, yourself, are actually killing through your own current behaviors?

Why do you NOT STOP the killing of those, which you are allowing to die, and which deaths you could actual prevent from happening?
Terrapin Station wrote: June 2nd, 2020, 9:34 am I wouldn't say the person filming had a moral obligation to do this, though, especially given the risks involved. But there's no way I'd just stand by and watch it.
Oh, do you have to actually see and watch a death before you would do something?

If just knowing deaths are happening does not motivate you to help, but only seeing and watching does, then this helps in explaining FULLY the saying; 'Turning a blind eye'.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Terrapin Station »

evolution wrote: June 11th, 2020, 2:37 am LOL So, are you saying that you would have moved in, pushed four police officers away, and prevented those four officers from fulfilling what they see as their professional duty?
Yes. I'd not be able to stand by and watch someone be killed. Again, that likely wouldn't end well for me, at least in the short term--surely I'd be arrested, at least, but my emotional reactions overtake "sensible action" in situations like that.
Why do you not move in and STOP the killing of the people that you, yourself, are actually killing through your own current behaviors?
Obviously I don't agree with your view there. The only person killing someone is someone applying physical force on another person in a way that ceases their life.
Why do you NOT STOP the killing of those, which you are allowing to die, and which deaths you could actual prevent from happening?
I'd do what I could to stop any such situation I encountered. Situations I'm not encountering I can't do much about.
Oh, do you have to actually see and watch a death before you would do something?
Yes, obviously. Just flailing about at the air in my office isn't going to do anything.

Is the idea that I might try to be Batman and go around looking for situations where nonconsensual physical violence is occurring?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by evolution »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am
evolution wrote: June 11th, 2020, 2:37 am LOL So, are you saying that you would have moved in, pushed four police officers away, and prevented those four officers from fulfilling what they see as their professional duty?
Yes.
LOL

At what point in time would you put the camera down and step in and push four police officers away from the human being that they were arresting?

Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am I'd not be able to stand by and watch someone be killed.
But you just got through telling us that if you were there filming, which means that you were completely obviously able to stand by and watch someone be killed.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am Again, that likely wouldn't end well for me, at least in the short term--surely I'd be arrested, at least, but my emotional reactions overtake "sensible action" in situations like that.
When would your emotional reactions overtake?

How long into watching, and filming, a human being kneel on another human being's neck would your emotional reaction supposedly take over?

Do your emotions exactly KNOW the time it takes for a human being to be killed by the knee of another human being?

How long would you watch, and film, a human being kneel on the neck of another human being before your emotions tell you to put the camera down?

As far as I am aware not many people KNEW the exact time it took before a human being died from being knelled on.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am
Why do you not move in and STOP the killing of the people that you, yourself, are actually killing through your own current behaviors?
Obviously I don't agree with your view there. The only person killing someone is someone applying physical force on another person in a way that ceases their life.
Showing absolutely NO interest at all in other's views, and, "justifying" to one's 'self' that the ONLY person killing is NOT them, are just two ways of keeping one's self from looking Honestly at their own behaviors, and keeping them self completely ignorant of facts.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am
Why do you NOT STOP the killing of those, which you are allowing to die, and which deaths you could actual prevent from happening?
I'd do what I could to stop any such situation I encountered. Situations I'm not encountering I can't do much about.
Turning a blind eye is very easy, and is very helpful in "not encountering" situations and remaining ignorant.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am
Oh, do you have to actually see and watch a death before you would do something?
Yes, obviously. Just flailing about at the air in my office isn't going to do anything.
Nice try.
Terrapin Station wrote: June 11th, 2020, 8:55 am Is the idea that I might try to be Batman and go around looking for situations where nonconsensual physical violence is occurring?
Once again, twisting and distorting to 'try' and deflect.
User avatar
Luxin
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: August 24th, 2018, 2:48 pm

"This is mine saith God or Karma"

Post by Luxin »

No one can stop karma or the wind. Both are consequences of some God/Nature action. Que sera, sera. What will be, will be, regardless. Choosing to kill one person brings Divine Retribution through failing to fulfill the commandment or law, "Thou shalt not kill". A warden was traumatized for approving the execution of an innocent man; the stain on one's Conscience is permanent, for life, and a tainted Conscience can lead to madness.

The best thing is not to get involved in matters that actually do not concern one, especially if any killing is involved. Humans like to create a "better outcome" in so many things, but whatever the outcome is is not the business of humans, but of God/Nature through The Law of Karma aka The Law of Spiritual Justice. We must not take upon ourselves the work of God/Nature or the karmic law; though we are tempted to, we should not imply or say we know better than God/Nature.

I think about a scenario where a man and woman on the street are fighting and the man tries to kill the woman with a knife. That's a bad karma situation which they are locked into, meaning their karma can't be stopped. Trying to interfere could get one killed. Succeeding in stopping the man could lead to something worse happening later on. Karma's like an unstoppable train. Forces we don't understand are in motion. Best not to try to play God or stop karma.

The people who stopped a knife wielding terrorist in London took serious risks in being heroes. It could have gone wrong for them, and their wives or girlfriends might have been waiting for them to come home.... Those who really value their life -- which is sacred -- do not risk their life. God/Nature wants us to live, and if we unconsciously try to alter that path we are attempting to play God whether we live or die, the latter death somewhat like suicide; we have no right to take chances with the life that God gives us. "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" (Romans). Many things are God/Nature's responsibility, belong to Him, not us. There is no cowardice in leaving God and Karma's work to them, "the professionals".
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Belindi »

Luxin, Karma and other forms of fatalism originated among groups of people who were either enslaved or otherwise unmanned and literally hopeless. Karma is a rationalisation of a particular social environment. Rationalising is what people do when we are unable to progress.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Gertie »

Marin
Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation?
Proof isn't possible.

If you're a consequentialist (and I think morality is ultimately grounded in consequence/outcomes) then you can never be sure that the knock on effects of an action won't be worse than inaction. It's easy to imagine how that could be true in this scenario.

Then there's the problem that there is no ultimate, objective grounding for morality which we all accept. That doesn't mean there can't be an appropriate grounding (and subsequent rules/guidelines) for Oughts/Moral Duties, just that there's no straightforward route to consensus on it. So 'proving' inaction in this case is morally wrong to others is a difficulty.


Is it wrong to wash one's hands of the responsability, of the burden to choose between 1 life and 5?


Yes. All things being equal, there is a moral duty to sacrifice the one life for the 5. Because morality is grounded in maximising the welfare of conscious creatures. And this is on the face of it a a clear cut choice in that respect.
I am in favor of choosing to kill 1 over the 5 but I couldn't condemn someone for not choosing at all, for they do not hold any responsibility for what is happening and I you can't obligate someone, without violating his rights to freedom, to involve himself in the situation.


Any moral duty will impinge on someone's freedom, and that has to be weighed in the balance. Here I think the freedom to do nothing is out-weighed by four unnecessary deaths, so individual freedom isn't key here.

However, we all fail in our moral duties and obligations all the time, without being blamed or sanctioned. I wouldn't blame or sanction anyone for inaction in this case. I don't even know how I'd act myself.
No matter what you choose, someone is still going to die in the end. If I have to choose between 1 death and 5 deaths, I rather not be given the power to choose at all.
Me neither!
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gertie wrote: June 24th, 2020, 9:52 am Any moral duty will impinge on someone's freedom
That doesn't seem right to me. Say that one felt that one has a moral duty to help people in (especially dire) need, in the manner that they're requesting help, as long as it doesn't involve doing things that one morally objects to. That would often not involve impinging on anyone's freedom.
User avatar
Luxin
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: August 24th, 2018, 2:48 pm

The Spiritual Law of Karma or Justice

Post by Luxin »

Belindi wrote: June 24th, 2020, 5:19 am Luxin, Karma and other forms of fatalism originated among groups of people who were either enslaved or otherwise unmanned and literally hopeless. Karma is a rationalisation of a particular social environment. Rationalising is what people do when we are unable to progress.
Hello Belindi,

On the contrary! Karma is of the Spiritual Law of Justice a.k.a. The Law of Karma, and It applies to all.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

To the title question, I would say that sometimes inaction is morally wrong, but not always. If, for example, we change the trolley problem such that no one is on the side track, and, assuming that one knows how to throw the switch and is capable of doing it (little details that make it in practice unrealistic, because most people don't know how to throw train switches), then I think it would be wrong to not throw the switch. And one should be blamed for this callousness in not saving 5 people's lives with so little cost to oneself. (As to whether there should be any legal responsibility, I have no wish at present to comment on that; I am confining my remarks to moral or ethical responsibility.)

But I do not accept the idea that it is morally okay to murder one person to save five people. Although most people are ready to say that they should do so in the original trolley problem, they often do not keep to that principle with the variations to the problem. Such as:

Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 29th, 2020, 2:23 am.... The trolley example is a bit deceptive, because it suggests at the outset that we can save 5 people by killing 1 person. So, the immediate response is well, saving 5 must be better than saving 1.

In the case of the trolley we are tempted to do that. But if we switch to the doctor wanting to save 5 people by killing 1 person and harvesting their organs, the situation is slightly different.

....
I suspect that most people do not think it would be morally okay for a surgeon to go out and grab some person off the street to harvest their organs to save five people.

That is a more extreme case than the case of pushing a fat man off of a bridge, whose body causes the trolley to stop, to stop the trolley from running over the five people. More people are willing to go along with killing the one with the original problem than with the fat man version, and more people are willing to go along with killing the fat man than will go along with the surgeon harvesting the organs of one (thereby killing the one) in order to save five people.

In short, people who affirm that one should murder one person to save five often do not follow that principle in all of the scenarios in which that idea is applicable, where killing one person would save five people. Clearly, there is something else that is involved in their opinions of how to deal with the various scenarios, if they do not stick with the principle that it is better to kill one to save five.


Also, it is worth mentioning that such thought experiments as the trolley problem are not meant to be realistic. They are idealized scenarios intended to illustrate ethical principles that people follow (or say they follow). In realistic scenarios, there are typically too many uncertainties to make it clear what principles people are applying to the problem, and what principles they should apply. Like, for example, jumping in a river to save a drowning person. If one contemplates that, often, one is uncertain that one will actually succeed in saving the person, and one may also drown oneself. Some years ago, four people drowned in a fountain at the Fort Worth Water Gardens, the one that was used as a set on the film Logan's Run. I read that one person fell into the fountain, and the other three entered to try to get the one out. (Not all at the same time; one entered, and then could not rescue the one who fell in and also could not get out, and then the others followed.) They all died, whereas only one would have died if they had not tried to save the one who fell in. In real life, the question of what to do to save someone is typically filled with uncertainty about the outcome. This is why thought experiments are used, so that one will not get sidetracked by the uncertainties and can focus on the relevant ethical issues.

In other words, the idealized situations are unrealistic on purpose. So complaining about it being unrealistic means that one is missing the point of the thought experiment.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 1st, 2020, 11:19 pm To the title question, I would say that sometimes inaction is morally wrong, but not always. If, for example, we change the trolley problem such that no one is on the side track, and, assuming that one knows how to throw the switch and is capable of doing it (little details that make it in practice unrealistic, because most people don't know how to throw train switches), then I think it would be wrong to not throw the switch. And one should be blamed for this callousness in not saving 5 people's lives with so little cost to oneself. (As to whether there should be any legal responsibility, I have no wish at present to comment on that; I am confining my remarks to moral or ethical responsibility.)

But I do not accept the idea that it is morally okay to murder one person to save five people. Although most people are ready to say that they should do so in the original trolley problem, they often do not keep to that principle with the variations to the problem. Such as:

Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 29th, 2020, 2:23 am.... The trolley example is a bit deceptive, because it suggests at the outset that we can save 5 people by killing 1 person. So, the immediate response is well, saving 5 must be better than saving 1.

In the case of the trolley we are tempted to do that. But if we switch to the doctor wanting to save 5 people by killing 1 person and harvesting their organs, the situation is slightly different.

....
I suspect that most people do not think it would be morally okay for a surgeon to go out and grab some person off the street to harvest their organs to save five people.

That is a more extreme case than the case of pushing a fat man off of a bridge, whose body causes the trolley to stop, to stop the trolley from running over the five people. More people are willing to go along with killing the one with the original problem than with the fat man version, and more people are willing to go along with killing the fat man than will go along with the surgeon harvesting the organs of one (thereby killing the one) in order to save five people.

In short, people who affirm that one should murder one person to save five often do not follow that principle in all of the scenarios in which that idea is applicable, where killing one person would save five people. Clearly, there is something else that is involved in their opinions of how to deal with the various scenarios, if they do not stick with the principle that it is better to kill one to save five.


Also, it is worth mentioning that such thought experiments as the trolley problem are not meant to be realistic. They are idealized scenarios intended to illustrate ethical principles that people follow (or say they follow). In realistic scenarios, there are typically too many uncertainties to make it clear what principles people are applying to the problem, and what principles they should apply. Like, for example, jumping in a river to save a drowning person. If one contemplates that, often, one is uncertain that one will actually succeed in saving the person, and one may also drown oneself. Some years ago, four people drowned in a fountain at the Fort Worth Water Gardens, the one that was used as a set on the film Logan's Run. I read that one person fell into the fountain, and the other three entered to try to get the one out. (Not all at the same time; one entered, and then could not rescue the one who fell in and also could not get out, and then the others followed.) They all died, whereas only one would have died if they had not tried to save the one who fell in. In real life, the question of what to do to save someone is typically filled with uncertainty about the outcome. This is why thought experiments are used, so that one will not get sidetracked by the uncertainties and can focus on the relevant ethical issues.

In other words, the idealized situations are unrealistic on purpose. So complaining about it being unrealistic means that one is missing the point of the thought experiment.
Right. And there is a basic problem with "principles". A principle must be short enough to be easily remembered. As a result, it never covers all the possible scenarios where it should or should not be applied.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is inaction morally wrong?

Post by popeye1945 »

Marin wrote: May 27th, 2020, 8:11 am Hello, I've been thinking about the general form of trolley problem lately. I think the majority of you would know what it is, but I'll add a description of what the general form of the trolley problem involves in case someone doesn't:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person."

And of course, the obvious question of the dilemma: "What is the right thing to do?"
I decided to create this thread not to talk wheter is is morally bette to save 5 lives over 1, as that has been discussed plenty of times, but whether inaction is morally permisable
Is there any way you could prove that inaction (do nothing and "allow" the five people to die) is morally wrong in this situation? Is it wrong to wash one's hands of the responsability, of the burden to choose between 1 life and 5? I am in favor of choosing to kill 1 over the 5 but I couldn't condemn someone for not choosing at all, for they do not hold any responsibility for what is happening and I you can't obligate someone, without violating his rights to freedom, to involve himself in the situation. No matter what you choose, someone is still going to die in the end. If I have to choose between 1 death and 5 deaths, I rather not be given the power to choose at all.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Thank you for your time
[/quote


Hi Marin, Really inaction is not even possible, a categorical error you might say, for even a considered inaction is really a reaction, not an action. That however doesn't solve the dilemma does it. I would solve it myself by one consideration, will my reaction increase or decrease the suffering in the world, that really the best I can do under the circumstances. Which reaction will create the least suffering in the world.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021