Posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:01:19
In reply to Re: Six » Rach, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:40:00
Ok. So we are morally responsible for our 'actions' but not our 'inactions'?? Is that the rationale?
'Letting die' is okay?
What if you are standing on the bank of a river. You are a strong swimmer. A child is drowning. If you jump in you can save the child, if you do not then the child will die. Is it morally acceptable to 'do nothing' in this case???
No, it's not acceptable to me to do nothing in this case. The difference is, that by acting in the train case, I deliberately cause death. By acting to save the child, the result is positive. I wasn't saying that we aren't morally responsible for our inactions - instead we are responsible for the consequences of our actions.
In the train case, by changing course, it means you're responsible for taking a human life.
poster:Rach
thread:464517
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465304.html