If someone is drowning and you refuse to help, are you responsible for his death?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by John Reece
Not too sure, I just know that they can be charged for it! Literally did this example in a law lesson last week 
i have not heard of this, and it doesn't really make any sense to me
if you can find the relevant criminal offence (/case) i would be very interested to have a look
It MIGHT be, but I wouldn't bet my house on it, something to do with failure to defuse a dangerous situation.
Original post by Cain Tesfaye
i have not heard of this, and it doesn't really make any sense to me
if you can find the relevant criminal offence (/case) i would be very interested to have a look
if you can find the relevant criminal offence (/case) i would be very interested to have a look
If helping them wouldn't harm me in that situation and I was safe to do so - then I do feel I contributed to their death as I could have prevented it.
Original post by ❃ Stardust ❃
If helping them wouldn't harm me in that situation and I was safe to do so - then I do feel I contributed to their death as I could have prevented it.
why do so many people on this thread equate not preventing a death with causing it?
If you just choose not to, then I think you'd be responsible. Not necessarily legally (I'm not sure), but morally.
Original post by Cain Tesfaye
that would come under the "assumption of responsibility" exception (see: R v Shepherd (1862); R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918)).
A lot of these exceptions seem to be based on some sort of self-evident moral view and intuitive decency; it seems highly counter intuitive to not extend the duty of care/to rescue strangers in danger.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
A lot of these exceptions seem to be based on some sort of self-evident moral view and intuitive decency; it seems highly counter intuitive to not extend the duty of care/to rescue strangers in danger.
the assumption of responsibility exception is typically the responsibility a parent has towards the wellbeing of their child(ren), to impose duties among strangers is not a logical extension of that
Original post by Cain Tesfaye
the assumption of responsibility exception is typically the responsibility a parent has towards the wellbeing of their child(ren), to impose duties among strangers is not a logical extension of that
Sure it is; parental responsibility towards the well-being of their child(ren) follows from a number of ethical theories, and there's no reason why we can't extend the exceptions to include other logical extensions of those ethical theories.
We could learn a thing or two from our neighbours across the Channel.
(edited 7 years ago)
Nope. If you also can't swim, how by you and that person drowning together productive? Maybe the character didn't like the character drowning or couldn't swim? Maybe they didn't want to risk their live too to save a person they didn't push in the water?
And how is someone falling into the water and drowning your fault? If you didn't push that person in the water that lead to their death,how can you take responsibility for their death?
And how is someone falling into the water and drowning your fault? If you didn't push that person in the water that lead to their death,how can you take responsibility for their death?
Just smile and wave boys... Smile and wave.
Original post by SmileyVibe
Nope. If you also can't swim, how by you and that person drowning together productive? Maybe the character didn't like the character drowning or couldn't swim? Maybe they didn't want to risk their live too to save a person they didn't push in the water?
And how is someone falling into the water and drowning your fault? If you didn't push that person in the water that lead to their death,how can you take responsibility for their death?
And how is someone falling into the water and drowning your fault? If you didn't push that person in the water that lead to their death,how can you take responsibility for their death?
What about calling for assistance?
Peter Singer argues that we're in this scenario every day, except that the physical proximity of the dying person is further away (impoverished places without access to clean water, adequate healthcare, etc.). For example, according to the AMF's estimate, it costs approximately $3,500 on average to save a person's life against malaria (source), so every penny we spend elsewhere is a nudge moved away from the drowning person in the original scenario.
I wondered for a long time about whether inaction really incurs moral culpability. I think I have to admit that it does. I don't have any good argument for why I, or any other person, shouldn't be donating a substantial quantity of their disposable income to charities or causes that people's lives truly depend on. The reason why I don't - as far as I can tell - is just selfishness.
I wondered for a long time about whether inaction really incurs moral culpability. I think I have to admit that it does. I don't have any good argument for why I, or any other person, shouldn't be donating a substantial quantity of their disposable income to charities or causes that people's lives truly depend on. The reason why I don't - as far as I can tell - is just selfishness.
I don't think you're responsible for their death but I do think it's better to save them.
I may change my mind. It's a difficult problem.
I may change my mind. It's a difficult problem.
Original post by balanced
You can't swim? Man, go out there and learn! It opens up so much 
I've got a few mental issues toward learning and that sort of thing. Lots of anxiety when it comes to other peoples opinions, I get really messed up and paranoid around lots of people (messes me up in exams quite a bit, too), and all that comes together when I try to swim with people watching.
I'd take lessons too, but alas you're talking to the guy who gets his pocket money by eating one less meal a day xD, I can't learn to swim without a psychiatrist up my butt :_:
Original post by Callicious
I've got a few mental issues toward learning and that sort of thing. Lots of anxiety when it comes to other peoples opinions, I get really messed up and paranoid around lots of people (messes me up in exams quite a bit, too), and all that comes together when I try to swim with people watching.
I'd take lessons too, but alas you're talking to the guy who gets his pocket money by eating one less meal a day xD, I can't learn to swim without a psychiatrist up my butt :_:
I'd take lessons too, but alas you're talking to the guy who gets his pocket money by eating one less meal a day xD, I can't learn to swim without a psychiatrist up my butt :_:
I swim to get away from the stress of life, but I go scuba diving and free diving, which is different I guess, I still recommend it
Original post by Plagioclase
If you had a good reason to believe that this person was in danger of death without your help then yes, definitely.
Well if you look at the definition of responsible:
1) having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
2) being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it
3) (of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.
the person watching is not obligated to do something as part of their job (though I think this can differ based on the country and its laws)
they aren't the primary cause
and it's not their job to
so i don't think they're responsible by definition
however, if their death could've 100% been prevented if that person helped them out, then yes I guess you could say they're partially responsible for the death at least morally. But it's never 100%, so even that's invalid :/
1) having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
2) being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it
3) (of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.
the person watching is not obligated to do something as part of their job (though I think this can differ based on the country and its laws)
they aren't the primary cause
and it's not their job to
so i don't think they're responsible by definition
however, if their death could've 100% been prevented if that person helped them out, then yes I guess you could say they're partially responsible for the death at least morally. But it's never 100%, so even that's invalid :/
well objectively no.
because that person's circumstances surrounding their drowning had nothing to do with you, so you cannot possibly be the agent simply by watching it happen. it's the same with watching somebody falling down a cliff - just because you have the means to save them, you have no responsibility to do so, because that would be putting yourself in danger instead of them, and you as another individual are by no means a servant to another. you could also compare it to watching homeless people starve - you can't be expected to save each and every homeless person, as that would cost too much and require too much of your knowledge; in the case of drowning individuals, there are obviously hundreds of people theoretically and statistically drowning this very second - do I necessary have the means to save them all? I mean, if they're all equal, either I do have an obligation or I don't. and clearly I don't, because to save them all, as equal individuals, is impossible. if we're saying that knowledge causes an obligation as you have the knowldge of their imminent death, still, you aren't responsible because you didn't cause them to drown in the first place - if you *had* done, then you are logically accountable because you are the cause that necessitated the effect. it's the same thing here.
it would be an ethical deed to save them, but there is literally nothing that can logically equate a person in such a situation as being responsible or objectively obliged to save them
because that person's circumstances surrounding their drowning had nothing to do with you, so you cannot possibly be the agent simply by watching it happen. it's the same with watching somebody falling down a cliff - just because you have the means to save them, you have no responsibility to do so, because that would be putting yourself in danger instead of them, and you as another individual are by no means a servant to another. you could also compare it to watching homeless people starve - you can't be expected to save each and every homeless person, as that would cost too much and require too much of your knowledge; in the case of drowning individuals, there are obviously hundreds of people theoretically and statistically drowning this very second - do I necessary have the means to save them all? I mean, if they're all equal, either I do have an obligation or I don't. and clearly I don't, because to save them all, as equal individuals, is impossible. if we're saying that knowledge causes an obligation as you have the knowldge of their imminent death, still, you aren't responsible because you didn't cause them to drown in the first place - if you *had* done, then you are logically accountable because you are the cause that necessitated the effect. it's the same thing here.
it would be an ethical deed to save them, but there is literally nothing that can logically equate a person in such a situation as being responsible or objectively obliged to save them
Of course not.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- English Language Creative Writing GCSE
- An inspector call
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
- GCSE English Literature AQA: Can someone mark my English literature essay? Thanks!
- An inspector calls-can someone read my aic essay and offer a grade pls
- Practice questions- An inspector calls
- Friends star Matthew Perry passes away at age 54
- English Language Paper 1 Q5
- How to get 9 in GCSE English literature...
- Macbeth practice
- GCSE English Literature AIC
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Why Does this QMUL not Care about the students (medicine)
- History NEA on Russia - need help!!!
- How does Priestley present ideas about responsibility in 'An Insector Calls'? (30 Mar
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
- GCSE AQA English Literature A Christmas Carol - Answer someone mark
- Aye Rate my lyrics
- please mark my 'a christmas carol' practice essay:
- an inspector calls
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
