Morality of Active and Passive Actions

[madviking]

Situation:

President Kennedy is speaking at a conference building in Dallas, on November, 22nd, 1963, and after a successful and rousing speech, Kennedy retires and walks through the hallways of the building, where one janitor has been mopping the floor while he was speaking. Inadvertently, the President slips, falls, and cracks his head open, killing him. After questioning, we learn that this janitor, despite just doing his job, had harbored a grudge against the President. After he watched JFK fall, he did nothing to assist the dying president as he feared that if he was caught trying to drag the body to safety, he'd be the prime suspect for the President's death.

Spoiler :

Later we learn that the name of the janitor was none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

A question we can ask if whether Oswald is just as morally responsible for the death of President Kennedy as what he actually did in real life, i.e. the Kennedy assassination?

More generally, does the passivity of actions, given the same motivation and outcome, determine their morality?

 

[Cutlass]

I think it' s muddier than that. Morally you have a responsibilty to not just stand there and let someone die. But the limits of that is if the potential rescuer is in danger themselves from doing so. No danger means an obligation to act. Danger means an obligation to at least attempt to summon competent help.

 

[madviking]

I think it' s muddier than that. Morally you have a responsibilty to not just stand there and let someone die.

That's not the question. Oswald did purposefully mop the floor (to make them wetter? more slick?) in hopes of somehow killing JFK. He let him die since that was his goal.

But to address your point anyway, is there really a moral right to assistance? I understand it is possibly personally the right thing to do, but are people really entitled to people's abilities when they are in a perilous situation?

I suppose you can have a situation where an ambulance is driving to save an elderly man who is suffering from a heart attack back to a hospital, but it encounters a dying child on the side of the road. Are the crew obligated to pick up the child, even it means the death of the elderly man due to the time lost stopping?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Oswald did purposefully mop the floor (to make them wetter? more slick?) in hopes of somehow killing JFK. He let him die since that was his goal.

So your concocted scenario is an action plus a passivity, and you want to compare that to the actual historical event of just plain action?

That doesn't fit the poll question. You should change your example to fit the question. Like this (let's make 2 examples for more completeness):

Oswald mopped the floor simply because that's his job, with no thoughts of killing or injuring anyone. After Kennedy fell, Oswald thought "oh goody, he might die!" and did nothing. Meanwhile in the next hall, Ozmond did his janitor job too, just to do the job. Lyndon Johnson fell and split his skull. Ozmond thought "Oh no, he might die!" but did nothing.

 

[madviking]

So your concocted scenario is an action plus a passivity, and you want to compare that to the actual historical event of just plain action?

That doesn't fit the poll question. You should change your example to fit the question. Like this (let's make 2 examples for more completeness):

Except Oswald did have the intention of hurting JFK.

 

[Berzerker]

of course he's morally responsible, he was trying to kill Kennedy and he did

 

[Dreadnought]

I thought the poll concerned Ayatollah So's idea.

In your case, OP, of course he's equally responsible.

 

[Synobun]

Erm, if it was his intention to kill him, it is obviously wrong, passive or active.

If he was simply doing his job, his grudge means nothing. Coming close to the President already warrants people aiming guns at you, I'm sure you hanging yourself over his dying body would get you some new bling for your grave. He is morally exempt from anything that resulted from him doing his job, and being passive after the fact meant he survived the ordeal and didn't also join the morgue.

 

[Defiant47]

A moral failing as a result of your inaction is just as immoral as a moral failing as a result of your direct actions.

If you can prevent an evil but take no actions to do so, then you have committed that evil.

 

[Dachs]

A moral failing as a result of your inaction is just as immoral as a moral failing as a result of your direct actions.

If you can prevent an evil but take no actions to do so, then you have committed that evil.

Considering the amount of evil that takes place in the world that can be fairly easy prevented, doesn't that make basically everybody evil?

Kind of makes the word meaningless, no?

 

[Synobun]

A moral failing as a result of your inaction is just as immoral as a moral failing as a result of your direct actions.

If you can prevent an evil but take no actions to do so, then you have committed that evil.

It would be incredibly stupid to put yourself in a position of where you're also guaranteed to die. Moral, or not.

 

[Leoreth]

Spoiler :

Later we learn that the name of the janitor was none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

DUN DUN DUUUUN!!!

(Sorry but this "twist" really made me think of said musical cue )

Anyway, I think considering your explanation of the situation, that janitor-Oswald also wanted to kill JFK and just chose a more insane method to do it, doesn't change anything. And it's not really a difference between active and passive, but direct and indirect, and in both cases Oswald was the ultimate reason for his death.

Now truly passive action would've been, say, JFK accidentally walks in front of a car and Oswald doesn't stop him, although he could. Neither the car nor JFK's movements were engineered by Oswald (let's assume he didn't concoct an even more insane plan), so he's not the ultimate cause of the situation, but still capable of preventing it without detriment. I think that's a more interesting moral question to discuss.

 

[lovett]

A moral failing as a result of your inaction is just as immoral as a moral failing as a result of your direct actions.

If you can prevent an evil but take no actions to do so, then you have committed that evil.

I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence, unfortunately, does not follow from the first. In fact, it is rather obviously false; it is not the case that my failure to prevent a child dying from malaria means I have killed a child with malaria. I may be equally culpable as if I had, but it is rather an abuse of language to say that I have. Precisely, it is an unjustifiable conflation of active and passive verbs.

Considering the amount of evil that takes place in the world that can be fairly easy prevented, doesn't that make basically everybody evil?

Kind of makes the word meaningless, no?

It means everyone falls short of moral perfection, certainly. But this is hardly a surprise. It also means that most people are dramatically morally inconsistent, but that is not a particularly strong criticism of an ethical thesis (were you looking for an ethical thesis that would simply tell us that everything we were doing was right?).

That doesn't mean everyone is evil. That is because the concept 'evil' is thicker than that of 'right' or 'wrong'; it plausibly includes notions of motive and the passivity of ones role. We can think of this two ways. Either to do 'evil' (rather than 'the wrong thing') one must actively intend to do that evil, in which case passive immorality is not evil. Or, 'evil' means 'wrong', but to be 'evil' one must actively intend to do evil. In which case, passive immorality does not make one evil (given how you formulate your question, this latter tack is perhaps the one you should take).

Neither makes 'evil' meaningless, as far as I can tell.

 

[Dachs]

It means everyone falls short of moral perfection, certainly. But this is hardly a surprise. It also means that most people are dramatically morally inconsistent, but that is not a particularly strong criticism of an ethical thesis (were you looking for an ethical thesis that would simply tell us that everything we were doing was right?).

That doesn't mean everyone is evil. That is because the concept 'evil' is thicker than that of 'right' or 'wrong'; it plausibly includes notions of motive and the passivity of ones role. We can think of this two ways. Either to do 'evil' (rather than 'the wrong thing') one must actively intend to do that evil, in which case passive immorality is not evil. Or, 'evil' means 'wrong', but to be 'evil' one must actively intend to do evil. In which case, passive immorality does not make one evil (given how you formulate your question, this latter tack is perhaps the one you should take).

Neither makes 'evil' meaningless, as far as I can tell.

I think you've assigned me motivations that I don't actually have.

 

[lovett]

I think you've assigned me motivations that I don't actually have.

Really? Do explain (I don't believe that I have assigned you any motivations).

 

[Core Imposter]

Not one of his fans, but Jimmy Carter was clear on this:

" I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I'm going to do it anyhow, because I'm human and I'm tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'

"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it."

Carter was admirably on point here.