Can inaction be murder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HerCrazierHalf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Le_Crouton said:
A person does not have an affirmative duty to act under the law to rescue anyone
Click to expand...
I should have specified that we’re not talking about legality here, which as readers of this forum know, is not the same as ethics or morality. I’m talking morality. What would God say at the Last Judgment? As the Confiteor says, “…for what I have done and what I have failed to do…” Not inadvertently, but purposefully. If you saw the drowning person and turned your boat in the opposite direction, in my mind at least, you have committed murder. I’m not really concerned in these examples with the legal niceties between manslaughter and murder.
 
Last edited:
HerCrazierHalf said:
Another example: A person is diagnosed with a treatable disease. No known moral dilemma exist wrt the treatment. If that person declines, knowing they will likely die, is that suicide? Yes the disease killed them but they had the means to cure it and chose not to perform that life saving acts.
Click to expand...
We are not required to take extraordinary means to treat an illness.
 
TheLittleLady said:
We are not required to take extraordinary means to treat an illness.
Click to expand...
Is it “extraordinary means” though.

I think if you were in this situation you might be morally obliged to accept treatment.

Say if you had a family to care for.
Not accepting treatment would be indicative of somebody with some sort of mental health issue IMO.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
Babies are incapable of feeding themselves. If a mother no longer performs the act of feeding the baby, the baby dies. Did she murder the child?
Click to expand...
I’ve recently heard a similar talking point.

I would say it depends on the basic care needed. Being fed is a basic level of care to sustain the child’s life. As a mother, she has responsibility to provide that care either by breastfeeding/formula/giving the child to someone who is able to provide that care.
HerCrazierHalf said:
If that person declines, knowing they will likely die, is that suicide? Yes the disease killed them but they had the means to cure it and chose not to perform that life saving acts
Click to expand...
In this case, this is not the basic level of care humans need. But rather, the poor health is the result of a pathology beyond their control. So it would be technically moral to decline medication and let it takes nature’s course. Of course, I’m sure this falls apart if the intent behind it is suicidal. But then again, it’s not suicide to deny life support or anything that prolongs a life in the face of chronic illness?

This is obviously not a perfect argument so if anyone wants to correct this, go ahead.
 
It is food for thought.

A loved one of mine had stroke - actually a series of strokes leaving his right side paralyzed, unable to speak or swallow, but he was cognizant of us. We knew very well that since his dr said that the strokes left a lot of brain pressure affecting the area controlling his internal organs, & should he have another stroke, it could finish him, & he’d told us all long ago , he wouldn’t want any life support,. He wanted to be let go. He was made as comfortable as possible, was given water to suck on if he wanted it, & he did passed away.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
In this case, this is not the basic level of care humans need. But rather, the poor health is the result of a pathology beyond their control. So it would be technically moral to decline medication and let it takes nature’s course.
Click to expand...
I suppose the line is knowledge. Say the person knows the condition is reasonably treatable, for instance a diabetic with good health insurance.

Since the early 2000s the supplies required to avoid bad outcomes are easily availible. But there’s a level of diligence required. Neglecting this for significant time frames is likely to result in bad outcomes and possibly death and the average diabetic knows this.
 
Even if one has 1,000 people to care for, one is not required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatment that causes worse pain and suffering than the disease brings. It is okay to say “I am ready to die”.
 
I’d argue such an illness isn’t truly treatable as there’s a low chance for regaining the original quality and quantity of life.
 
Yep.

And everyone, even young adults, need to have this conversation with their family and close friends. Everyone knows that I do not want extraordinary measures. Everyone also knows that my husband wants every extraordinary measure (in fact, he lives now on the most extraordinary of measures).
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
Unlike the other examples there’s no explicit duty to care for another out oneself here.
Click to expand...
That igores the following
goout said:
Intentional homicide
…
[2269] The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Click to expand...
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Click to expand...
It’s like the TV show “What would you do?” I was on a crowded subway once, and a guy that was clearly drunk or on drugs was making grabbing motions towards women’s bottoms. No one said a word except an older gentleman in his 60s who said “Don’t do that.” The guy pulled a knife. The older gentleman stood up to confront him. The guy ran away at the next stop. All the other passengers were much younger and fitter than the older gentleman. Where were they? I’m sure we all have stories like this.
 
Well that’s a very different case than your first hypothetical situation of a person lost at sea. People don’t have an obligation to put their lives at risk just to stop someone from being rude.
 
Last edited:
But it does sound like no one helped the old man when he had a knife pulled on him. 🙁
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there is even a moral obligation to save another’s life if it puts your own life at risk. Sure, it’s a good thing to do.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
But it does sound like no one helped the old man when he had a knife pulled on him. 🙁
Click to expand...
Nope. No one lifted a finger or even said anything. They did, however, move back out of range of the guy with the knife!

No, the older man had no obligation to stop the guy, but it was the right thing to do. Studies have shown that this is typical–if there is someone doing something wrong, even if there is a large crowd present, it’s always one or two people who act, not the group.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
They did, however, move back out of range of the guy with the knife!
Click to expand...
And that is a very sensible thing to do. Fighting someone armed with a knife while unarmed requires a lot of skill, and it’s incredibly easy to end up dead.

The Youtube channel Active Self Protection has a whole playlist of videos analyzing real knife attacks. They are gruesome, violent, graphic, and not for the faint of heart. But I recommend anyone who is quick to criticize people for trying to avoid a knife attack check those out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top