Topic: What implies responsibility? The consequences of an action, inaction, or both?

Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,413

For example;

Inaction: You let a man accidentally walk off a cliff, even though you could have saved him. Are you responsbile?
Action: You push a man off a cliff, are you responsible?

The resounding view seems to be: Inactions resulting in harm are permissible, but not actions.

There is no reasoning to this. People automatically accept this moral view. Even though two situations result in the same thing, and are so because of a choice you made, one is evil, and the other is not.

Why hold a view when there is no rationalization to it?

(Edited 38 seconds later.)

Poll option	Votes	Percentage
Just actions.	-	0%
Just inactions.	-	0%
Both acitons and inactions.	6	100%

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #111,304

If it's within your power to stop him falling from the cliff and you choose not to act, you are responsible through your inaction, in my opinion.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #111,308

Both. If you decide to not show up to work, then you're responsible for this and the consequence of being fired.

mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #112,022

You are only responsible for inaction if you have a responsibilty to act.

eg firefighters have a responsibilty to put out fires

Minichan