Is allowing wrong wrong?

[lawtonfogle]

So, is allowing something wtrong to happen wrong? Always, never, depends upon the case?

What if a parent invites in a child serial killer, and then just stands back and watches while their child is killed. They never took part in the killing, a independent moral agent made the choice to kill.

A far more common and possible example. You friend is drunk. Not buzzed, drunk. And s/he attempt to drive back home. Is it wrong if you don't nothing to stop them? Or you any bit responsible if anyone dies?

 

[GarryJr]

you are wrong if you allow a friend to drive off knowing they are too drunk to drive.

 

[MoonLancer]

you are wrong if you allow a friend to drive off knowing they are too drunk to drive.

depends. If they drive drunk and die, will you ever be able to forgive yourself.

 

[yatcup]

I think in the first case we are not debating culpability, but rather a person's common sense or judgment acumen.

And, your question involves the word "allowing," which will cause the turn on whatever answers you receive in this thread (or elsewhere). Reword, perhaps, to: "Is it immoral to refrain from acting to prevent another act of immorality?"

 

[Verv]

In some circumstances allowing wrong is right; it is OK to live in a society where sin is allowed as free will must exist.

However, in one's personal life, one must not allow oneself to do wrong.

“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire." - Matthew 18:8

 

[levi501]

Setting up a situation where you know harm will arise that can easily be prevented is immoral. Of course this only applies to humans where as god is given a free ride.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Yes, you are your brother's keeper.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it depends on the context; there is no universal answer to all situations.

In situations like the ones you pose, yes, I feel that the person allowing the disaster to happen is responsible.

In other situations, there may be a fine line to not cross. For instance, if you feel that someone is doing something wrong to someone else or to themself, but those people don't find it wrong, should you intervene? Like, is it wrong if I let my friend do drugs, when she's making the decision to do them? What should I do if I decide to stop her? What can I do? Or if one country feels that another country is treating its people wrong, should we invade and liberate? If we don't, are we wrong for letting it occur? This can come down to the aspect of moral relativity.

In situations where just about everyone involved will agree that what is happening is wrong (like a murder, rape, and so forth), I think someone is negligent if they don't help. But if it's a scenario where people disagree whether something's wrong, then it's a judgment call, and it could go sour either way.

-Lyn

 

[GarryJr]

would you be able to forgive yourself if the worse case example came to be? ex. you let your friend drive home drunk and they crash and kill someone? kill themselves?

 

[Mling]

Depends on your level of responsibility towards the person acting, and towards anybody else involved.

There's a degree to which you need to just accept that people have the right to run their own lives, and you aren't in charge of them. If somebody's temporarily screwed up (drunk/high/having a psychotic episode) and are causing immediate danger, then yes...you have a duty to try to manage the situation safely.

If somebody's leading a life that is against your morals or destructive, and (if the former) you've expressed your opinion or, (if the latter) you've offered support and made a serious attempt to help, then I'd say it falls under the category of 'adults have the right to make their own decisions." Actually it's more than that. If somebody wants to do X, they are going to do it. It's simply not in my power to live their life for them.