more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Many philosophers (e.g. Rachels) have argued that there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and allowing to die (or the related 'acts and omissions'),..as in not sending food, or sending poisoned food. I disagree.
Gist of Idea
It is not true that killing and allowing to die (or acts and omissions) are morally indistinguishable
Source
Philippa Foot (Killing and Letting Die [1985], p.78)
Book Ref
Foot,Philippa: 'Moral Dilemmas' [OUP 2002], p.78
A Reaction
It appears that some omissions are worse than acts. It is more honest to just shoot an injured person, than to walk away and leave them to die. A range of cases.
| 20869 | The highest degree of morality performs all that is appropriate, omitting nothing [Chrysippus] |
| 7404 | Nations are not obliged to help one-another, but are obliged not to harm one another [Grotius, by Tuck] |
| 15824 | There are mere omissions (through ignorance, perhaps), and people can 'commit an omission' [Chisholm] |
| 4692 | It is not true that killing and allowing to die (or acts and omissions) are morally indistinguishable [Foot] |
| 4694 | Making a runaway tram kill one person instead of five is diverting a fatal sequence, not initiating one [Foot] |
| 6998 | Folk morality does not clearly distinguish between doing and allowing [Jackson] |
| 6479 | Noninterference requires justification as much as interference does [Nagel] |
| 4658 | Acts and Omissions: bad consequences are morally better if they result from an omission rather than an act [Glover] |
| 4659 | It doesn't seem worse to switch off a life-support machine than to forget to switch it on [Glover] |
| 4660 | Harmful omissions are unavoidable, while most harmful acts can be avoided [Glover] |
| 20881 | The act/omission distinction is important for duties, but less so for consequences [LaFollette] |
| 21136 | Utilitarians conflate acts and omissions; causing to drown and failing to save are the same [Shorten] |