A question my friend's Philosophy class discussed...

Basically... two men recieve a letter through the post asking for aid for poor people. One man ignores it and due to lack of aid a person dies. The other man sends a poisoned sandwich (why anyone would do this I don't know) and someone eats it and dies.

Is one man worse than the other?

I'm assuming this question is trying to get you to think about whether someone who could act to save someone and doesn't is just as bad as someone who actively seeks to kill someone?

My first reaction would be the man with his poisoned sandwich is worst because he has the intent to kill whereas the first man probably didn't mean to kill someone. But when I think about it a bit more I'm not so sure.

In law would failing to act be manslaughter or anything? Or do you not have any obligation to act to save a person?

Reply 1

Symph

16

Err, I'd go with the guy who has chosen to actively kill someone whilst simultaneously ruining what was probably a pretty good sandwich as worse.

Reply 2

coolguy456

Symph

Err, I'd go with the guy who has chosen to actively kill someone whilst simultaneously ruining what was probably a pretty good sandwich as worse.

HAHA!!!

EDIT: Also, whoever eats a random sandwich sent through the post, probably deserves to die!

Reply 3

HacklyFracture

OP

Symph

whilst simultaneously ruining what was probably a pretty good sandwich as worse.

I knew the sandwich was a bad analogy!

Reply 4

marshmallow88

Although apathy isn't great, the guy who did nothing had no malicious intent; the other guy did, so I'd say he was worse.

EDIT: As for legality - I don't think you have any legal obligation to aid someone - even if it was just a child who had fallen over, knocked themsekves unconcious and was drwoining in a puddle, for example. Legally, I'm pretty sure you can just stand and watch and do nothing (if you're some kind of sick freak). That's the case in the UK at least; I think it's different elsewhere.

Reply 5

Llamaaa

15

Nobody except people in a position of responsibility (police for example, doctors on the scene) has a responsibility to save anyone in law. Not helping someone when you could, is a bit selfish and immoral, but deliberately killing someone is a lot worse, because it has an intention involved. To actually think, I will kill this person, is a lot worse than thinking, I can't be bothered with this or not thinking anything at all.

Reply 6

cpj1987

15

I'd say that the man who actively set out to kill someone is by far the worse of the two people.

The man who ignored the message asking for aid, unless it was very specific about who and why, is completely innocent, in my opinion. I mean, all of us do that pretty often don't we? If I sent money to every charity that sent me junkmail through the door, I wouldn't be able to live myself!

Reply 7

Symph

16

I don't think you can blame the guy who isn't putting a few quid, which probably wouldn't get to where it was supposed to go, into the charity envelope. We aren't individually responsible for saving each others lives at the end of the day, and even if he did save one life there would still be another envelope through his door next month, with the interim between the two seeing thousands of people dying.

But to actively kill a person with the use of poison is clearly worse as death is intended, unquestionable and instant, whereas the guy getting no aid would probably die pretty soon anyway. It's basically the intent that makes the difference.

Reply 8

HacklyFracture

OP

coolguy456

HAHA!!!

EDIT: Also, whoever eats a random sandwich sent through the post, probably deserves to die!

I think your meant to assume it was sent as part of an aid thing. In a pack of food. What charity accepts random food from people I don't know though.

Reply 9

73337

18

What's worse:

....1. "Watching someone being battered to death"
2. "Battering someone to death"....?

Reply 10

HacklyFracture

OP

I thought that would be most people's opinion and I have to say I'm pretty sure it's mine. I don't think it's a very good example though. A better example would be one where the person could help with no threat or cost to themselves other than a bit of their time. Maybe such as watching some choke to death when you know the heimlich maneuver.

I think maybe someone who lets someone die through apathy or ignorance is much less to blame than someone who knows someone is going to die and could help but decided they want them to die. I don't think i got my point across very well there :frown:

.

In the end both options have the same consequence -maybe I'm just not cut out to be a philospher. Or maybe her teacher is odd I don't know.

Reply 11

falls_whisper

14

Basically the same as all the above.

Deliberately hurting someone (and in this case, for no apparent reason) is inexcusable. Standing by and not doing anything isn't exactly godly behaviour, but everyone does it - it's impossible to help all those who ask for it.

Reply 12

Kady

The person who sent the sandwich was worse! The guy who didn't send the aid can't be blamed, because who's to say it was his fault? Millions of people don't send aid, so the blame can't be pinned on one specific person, but maybe that's over analysing.
I suppose if the first guy KNEW he would kill someone by not sending the aid then he's as bad as the 2nd guy, but how is an ordinary person to know that?
Are all people that don't donate to charity murderers? Really?

Reply 13

louisedotcom

13

Thats a rubbish story, a poison sandwich? Who sends a sandwich through the post anyway, and who would eat it!?
Its quite clear that the guy who sent the sandwich is the worse one. You are not a bad person for ignoring junk mail.

Reply 14

HacklyFracture

OP

louisedotcom

Thats a rubbish story, a poison sandwich? Who sends a sandwich through the post anyway, and who would eat it!?
Its quite clear that the guy who sent the sandwich is the worse one. You are not a bad person for ignoring junk mail.

I never said it was a good story. You sort of have to ignore that and instead say "Who is worse, someone who doesn't stop someone dying when they easily could or someone who shoots someone?" Still get the same conclusion though I think.

I am under the impression that my friends philosophy teacher is a bit odd anyway. They discuss paedophiles a lot. :confused:

Reply 15

paperclip

18

i'll go with the general oppinion; when you set out to destroy someones life your obviously the bad person

HOWEVER it depends how malicious it was
if i was a starving aids infected child then i'd rather die then lead a life of suffering
if there was an option like "if you want to end your life and end the suffering eat this sandwich" then im sure i'd quite like the "murderer" (i also happen to belive assisted suicide isnt murder)

Reply 16

louisedotcom

13

Moon_Wolf

I never said it was a good story. You sort of have to ignore that and instead say "Who is worse, someone who doesn't stop someone dying when they easily could or someone who shoots someone?" Still get the same conclusion though I think.

I am under the impression that my friends philosophy teacher is a bit odd anyway. They discuss paedophiles a lot. :confused:

I know, but its just confussing as you why the teacher wouldnt just say that, dont you think?

The poison sandwich scenario might pass with a group of primary school kids but otherwise its just crap, because it doesnt actually make you think about it in that context.

Second guy.

A better example to use would be;

What is worse?
A guy who is standing next to a starving child and refuses to give his sandwich, and hence the kid dies of hunger.
A guy who is standing next to a starving child, poisons his sandwich and gives it to the kid, which leads to the child's death.

Reply 19

HacklyFracture

OP

sarforaz

A better example to use would be;

What is worse?
A guy who is standing next to a starving child and refuses to give his sandwich, and hence the kid dies of hunger.
A guy who is standing next to a starving child, poisons his sandwich and gives it to the kid, which leads to the child's death.

I think you should replace our college's Philosophy teacher. :p:

Or at least help him in making up scenarios!

A question my friend's Philosophy class discussed...

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you