Commission vs. Omission

[Edric O]

We haven't had a philosophy topic in a while, so I decided to start one.

The question is, what is the difference in responsibility between causing something to happen (commission of an act) and letting something happen by doing nothing (omission)? Suppose, for example, that person A pushes a man off a cliff, while person B is standing right next to a man about to fall off a cliff and does nothing to help him. Are they both equally responsible and guilty, or is there a difference? And if there is a difference, do circumstances matter?

[MrFlibble]

That reminds me of Kant somehow. Circumstances always matter, and omission might be as much a sin as commission.

What kind of responsibility do you mean? Responsibility as a personal feeling (e.g. someone might feel guilty for letting something happen, although he/she might have been actually unable to alter the situation), or as a social function (when one can be punished for doing something wrong/letting something wrong happen)?

[nemafakei]

Hm. Morally, they are both responsible, so long as:

1. They were both fully aware of the results of their actions.

2. They actually were both independently able to prevent the man's death

3. They both had the opportunity to react consciously.

4. There were no other significant circumstances that haven't been mentioned.

And if you think about it, it's pretty scary that someone could sit there and let one person kill another in the full knowledge that they could intervene to stop it.

However what you can and can't expect of people makes omission difficult to deal with on a practical basis.

For example, in the real world, you can't prove person B was able to save the victim.

[Tatar Khan]

I completely agree with Nema Fakei

The actions of the second person will rest on that persons cost-benefit analysis. So depending on how much happiness that person will gain from attempting to save that person, or how much happiness he gets from seeing that person die (psychotically inbalanced person can not be ruled out as Edric O did not have any assumptions against that). And how much pain seeing the person die or not die.

[Edric O]

What kind of responsibility do you mean? Responsibility as a personal feeling (e.g. someone might feel guilty for letting something happen, although he/she might have been actually unable to alter the situation), or as a social function (when one can be punished for doing something wrong/letting something wrong happen)?

I was thinking of responsibility as a social function, though we can talk about the personal feeling as well, of course. The question is, how should society - or the law - treat commission as compared to omission?

Hm. Morally, they are both responsible, so long as:

1. They were both fully aware of the results of their actions.

2. They actually were both independently able to prevent the man's death

3. They both had the opportunity to react consciously.

4. There were no other significant circumstances that haven't been mentioned.

And if you think about it, it's pretty scary that someone could sit there and let one person kill another in the full knowledge that they could intervene to stop it.

I agree. If those 4 conditions are met, then omission is just as bad as commission and should be treated as such by the law. But what if they are not met? Is omission then okay, or is it still bad but not quite as bad as commission?

Note: I have my own opinions on these questions I am asking, but I won't bring them up just yet.

For example, in the real world, you can't prove person B was able to save the victim.

In some situations you can.

The actions of the second person will rest on that persons cost-benefit analysis.

Unlikely. I don't know about you, but I never do a cost-benefit analysis when I have to take a quick decision in a few seconds - there simply isn't enough time. I expect the same is true for most people. They may think about some costs and benefits, but not necessarily about costs and benefits to themselves personally, and their end decisions may just be based on a very vague approximation of the facts.

[Dante]

True, but then if you have some kind of... all purpose response then this is no longer a problem. Some might act to save a life simply because they believe that one should always make the attempt regardless of personal safety. Others, myself included, would first have to be persuaded that no personal harm would be likely, and in a split-second decision would definately err on the side of personal safety.

As for the earlier question, I like to think that an act in itself carries a certain weight. That is, that commission is inherently more valuable (or blameworthy) than omission. This is because an act requires active participation, a decision and a physical carrying out of that decisison. Doing nothing, that is allowing something to happen, does not carry the same 'effort' and in effect has less responsibility.

Of course if one chooses to value outcome more than action (or behaviour) then the two are essentially the same. As with most moral quandries, it really depends on where your priorities lie.

[MrFlibble]

Doing nothing is also an action. In my opinion, actions aren't just movement in space and energy spent on such movement. Actions are results of decisions people make, and are secondary to human cognitive functions. If you decide not to act, it's the same way as if you decided to act. The weight of responsibility is the same.

[Tatar Khan]

Unlikely. I don't know about you, but I never do a cost-benefit analysis when I have to take a quick decision in a few seconds - there simply isn't enough time. I expect the same is true for most people. They may think about some costs and benefits, but not necessarily about costs and benefits to themselves personally, and their end decisions may just be based on a very vague approximation of the facts.

True.People often assume that cost-benefit analysis should take time, however when it is done with regards yourself it is instantaneous as the access to your memories and previous experiences. The cost benefit analysis would be based on that and instantaneous calculation. There is a predefined action that already in the brain that is the action that a person would do calculated ahead of the time based on the experience just in this case it is instantaneous adjustment to the situation is made.

[Anathema]

I agree with MrFibble. Not doing something is also a way of acting. Just letting someone die, assuming that you could help without any risk to yourself, is just as bad as killing somebody yourself.

But let's ponder some concrete situations: suppose that someone is drowning in a pond, and about 20 people stand around doing nothing (as heartless as that may seems, it does happen), are they responsible for the victims death? Should they be punished?

[Edric O]

I believe that your responsibility to help depends on how easy it is for you to help and what risks you would be taking in order to help.

If it's really easy for you to help and there is no risk involved, then omission is just as bad as commission. Letting someone die when you could have saved them just by extending your hand - or giving them a bit of pocket change to buy food - is equivalent to murder and should be treated as such in the courts.

However, you cannot be held accountable for not doing anything to stop an armed bank robbery - the risk to yourself would have been too great.

[Anathema]

Well, that's where specific circumstances come into play. It all comes down to wether or not you can blame a person for not having acted differently.

[Caid Ivik]

The question is, what is the difference in responsibility between causing something to happen (commission of an act) and letting something happen by doing nothing (omission)? Suppose, for example, that person A pushes a man off a cliff, while person B is standing right next to a man about to fall off a cliff and does nothing to help him. Are they both equally responsible and guilty, or is there a difference? And if there is a difference, do circumstances matter?

This question (as many in abstract ethics) highly depends on subjective worldview. I may be a fanatic humanist and say everybody is responsible for anybody else - in that way I would be responsible even for the fall of that man. On the other hand, I wouldn't be responsible for the pushing, as it was done by the other one; the fall was its consequence, so the murderer has a twice deeper guilt. Sure, even in this extreme case, even circumstances matter - perhaps they were arguing because of me, thus I would (in this case) bear the most guilt, as I should have felt responsibility towards them before.

That was one extrem. Another would be if I were a fatalist; in that case neither I nor "A" would be responsible for man's fall. If we were to search for a reasonable solution, than "B" has full moral right to not intervene, if he feels no bond to the pushed man.

[MrFlibble]

However, you cannot be held accountable for not doing anything to stop an armed bank robbery - the risk to yourself would have been too great.

Don't forget that it's not only risk for yourself, but also for other people involved, as you can provoke more violence by attempting resistance.

[Edric O]

Don't forget that it's not only risk for yourself, but also for other people involved, as you can provoke more violence by attempting resistance.

Yes, you are right. Risk to people in general (yourself included) should be a mitigating factor.

But let's ponder some concrete situations: suppose that someone is drowning in a pond, and about 20 people stand around doing nothing (as heartless as that may seems, it does happen), are they responsible for the victims death? Should they be punished?

Yes to both questions as long as the people involved can swim.

[gunner154]

A lot of weight lies in awareness. Accidentally killing a person as compared to not knowing that your inaction could cost a life aren't very different to me. That's the initial step.

However, the problem is that, in a scenario in which I actively participate in causing death, that person would very likely be living if not for my action. Think about it - would there be a difference between pushing someone who couldn't swim into a pool and then diving in to save that person, and finding someone drowning in a pool and then going in to save that person. There would be a difference because the person would not drowning anyway if you hadn't landed him in the pool.

Which leads me to a hasty conclusion based off the top of my head: Such scenarios involve two parts - the cause and the resolution. Both determine the rightness of an action or lack thereof.

The case with 20 people is tricky. Would a person be more likely to take action and save the drowning person if he were to be the only one around or if there were lots of other swimmers around?

If it were more likely for him to ignore the drowning person if many were around than otherwise, it could be possible that each person expects himself to be absolved of much blame by distributing it across many other people. The burden of rescue would be distributed amongst all at the scene, and thus the wrongness and guilt attributed to it would be correspondingly reduced.

(Edit: Thanks Edric O for thinking of a topic like this. It definitely adds life to the forum!)

[Edric O]

A lot of weight lies in awareness. Accidentally killing a person as compared to not knowing that your inaction could cost a life aren't very different to me. That's the initial step.

Yes, I agree.

However, the problem is that, in a scenario in which I actively participate in causing death, that person would very likely be living if not for my action. Think about it - would there be a difference between pushing someone who couldn't swim into a pool and then diving in to save that person, and finding someone drowning in a pool and then going in to save that person. There would be a difference because the person would not drowning anyway if you hadn't landed him in the pool.

Which leads me to a hasty conclusion based off the top of my head: Such scenarios involve two parts - the cause and the resolution. Both determine the rightness of an action or lack thereof.

That's an interesting issue. In the first case we have two actions (first pushing a person into the pool, then saving the person), while in the second case we have only one action (saving the person). There are two ways to look at the difference between those two cases:

Perspective #1

The first case is on the whole morally neutral, because the harm done by pushing the person in the water was undone by the rescue; the first action was evil and the second good, so they more or less cancel each other out. In the second case we only have one good action, so the second case is on the whole morally good.

Perspective #2

Both cases are morally neutral. It is your duty to save a drowning man if no great risk or effort is necessary in order to do so - regardless of who pushed that man in the water. Refusing to save the man in the second case would be evil.

I strongly favour perspective #2.

The case with 20 people is tricky. Would a person be more likely to take action and save the drowning person if he were to be the only one around or if there were lots of other swimmers around?

If it were more likely for him to ignore the drowning person if many were around than otherwise, it could be possible that each person expects himself to be absolved of much blame by distributing it across many other people. The burden of rescue would be distributed amongst all at the scene, and thus the wrongness and guilt attributed to it would be correspondingly reduced.

That is how people often think. It has been demonstrated empirically that if there is a large crowd of potential rescuers around a person in need of rescue, each member of that crowd feels less responsibility to help than in the case where he is the only man capable of helping.

The question is, are people right in holding such an attitude? I think not. I believe that you have the same responsibility to rescue a drowning man regardless of whether you are swimming alone or together with 20 other people. If some other swimmer goes to the rescue before you do, your responsibility is erased. But if you swim away without seeing anyone else go to the rescue, you are still responsible and you have committed an evil act.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

aren't there some states/provinces/countries  where they have a law called "the good Samaritan" law?  basically saying that you as a citizen are expected to help other citizens in danger of death or injury if you are able to safely offer help.  the name of the legislation obviously comes from the parable in the New Testament.

I just watched Schindler's List last night and [hide]the scene where Mr. Schindler starts crying definitely is an example of someone feeling morally obligated to help others from dying, especially since he is a member of the political party doing the killing.  The best scene of the whole thing I thought.[/hide]

*edit*

If you throw in causality and apply it to this commission vs. omission, it sounds like many of you would be against abortion in many scenarios, am I right?  as long as...

1. They were both fully aware of the results of their actions.

2. They actually were both independently able to prevent the man's death

3. They both had the opportunity to react consciously.

4. There were no other significant circumstances that haven't been mentioned.

And if you think about it, it's pretty scary that someone could sit there and let one person kill another in the full knowledge that they could intervene to stop it.

[Edric O]

*edit*

If you throw in causality and apply it to this commission vs. omission, it sounds like many of you would be against abortion in many scenarios, am I right?  as long as...

I do have on the whole a negative attitude towards abortion, but not for this reason. This issue cannot be used as an argument in the abortion debate unless we start from the assumption that a fetus is equivalent to a full human being - which is not a certainty, but rather the one controversy at the heart of the whole debate.

Speaking of which, abortion is always guaranteed to spark a debate. I'll start a topic on it.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

equivalate a person being pushed into the pool as abortion and the girl falling into a pool as a fetus becoming a human.  There is debate as to whether a fetus is a human being, however there is no question that a fetus won't become a person eventually without direct interference, and abortion is an interference.  So by aborting the fetus you have in fact prevented it from becoming a human, which would be like pushing the girl into a pool with no chance of rescuing her from drowning.  She's dead, the fetus is dead.

The question isn't whether your preventing something a chance at life or not. The question is this: is it as morally unjustifiable to prevent something from obtaining a human life as it is to end a human life?  The constitution doesn't guarantee rights of potential U.S citizens, only current US citizens.  So it's not a legal question just a moral one, one that will either be supported by law or not.

Since people can't agree on the death penalty why should people agree on abortion?  guess that's the way it goes. but yea i would still say that commission vs. omission could be used in the abortion debate, albeit not to achieve a final opinion, but to at least narrow down the underlying topic of objection