Which act is more evil?

[Strathos]

Consider the following hypothetical situations.

1. A man is walking down the street. He sees another man standing by the side of the street. This second man is unarmed, non-threatening, and innocent. The first man takes out a gun and shoots the second man, killing him.

2. A man is walking through the desert. He sees another man who is dying of thirst. The first man is carrying plenty of water for both of them, and could be easily call in help to take the second man to a hospital in minutes. Instead, he completely ignores the dying man, leaving him to his fate.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

Matthew 7:1-2

Both are wicked things to do

James 2:10

That's why it does not matter , focus rather on good things and let God be the judge .

 

[brinny]

Both. Both are equally as murderous. It's the heart. Both wanted that hypothetical person dead. Actually the 2nd scenario is possibly more evil, since he's deliberately letting that man suffer a slow, agonizing death of dehydration in the punishing desert sun.

It's a heart condition. Both are cold-blooded and heartless. The second heartless one being possibly more heartless and murderous than the first. The first victim died immediately without suffering. The 2nd victim was doubly victimized by not only the cruel sin of omission, but the fact that this man with the water "saw" the dying man, probably looked him in the eye, and knew he was suffering, had the remedy or the means to help him, and passed him on by.

Which victim was traumatized more and could've been helped but wasn't?

There's your answer right there.

 

[Noxot]

in 1. there is no way to know if that person who was killed is innocent. if the guy was for instance pointing a gun and trying to rob a convenient store and then even killed someone then the situation would be far more obvious as to the nature of the killer.

appearing to be innocent is something that psychopaths like to do. criminals often prefer the dark for obvious reasons. anger tends to make one irrational as do certain drugs and alcohol. I think that there might be times where it is better to kill someone than to let them live if that means that person will do more and more evils to other people. however society might not think that is right because many base their morality via whatever the social norms and what the government tells them is good. fear of punishment is not the same thing as righteous action. or they might even find an excuse to not do anything and let bad things happen due to some religious belief.

1. is a very difficult situation to find yourself in. may the Lord and his angels be with you and guide you. the whole cause as to why it could be happening is not as personal to you as 2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. is much easier to determine justice in this situation and I would think that almost anyone could understand what one ought to do. the evil is revealed in you directly for not doing the right thing when you had the power to. it is a manifestation of lack of love or a high degree of selfishness or maybe even a powerful fear of other human beings. this matter more directly concerns you and you have a clearer understanding of the situation.

2. can still have some unknowns in it that make the situation somewhat different. the guy could have been a pedophile mass rapist and instead of someone killing him they decided to beat him up and left him to die. in general it would probably be a good idea to try to save his/her life since you can't just assume that would be the case. he could have gotten very drunk and lost and wound up there somehow. sure it's his fault but you have to be pretty heartless to not help him/her.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

for 1. if I somehow magically understood the guy being shot was innocent then murder and murder seem about the same to me. how can anyone justify someone not saving someones elses life if they had the power and were not themselves even in danger of losing their own life? it's pure evil to be around someone suffering and fixing to die and not aid them if you can. you happen to be right there for a reason.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If one is required to rate the amount of evil in an action then IMO there is no doubt that killing a person should be considered more evil than not killing a person.

 

[paul1149]

What's the purpose of the question?

 

[Strathos]

What's the purpose of the question?

I was just wondering if people saw a difference between actively doing evil and doing evil by inaction.

 

[Noxot]

inaction is a type of action

 

[Earatha]

1. Easily.

While 2 is despicable you are not instigating a violent action. You are not responsible for that other person's life or actions. I might say that it is rational and right to call for help, since we want to live in a world where people help each other when they can. However by not they have not committed the unforgivable evil: they have not instigated violence against another. They are deplorable, but not as evil as the man who instigated physical violence against a man who did not provoke him.

 

[grasping the after wind]

inaction is a type of action

No it isn't. Inaction is a lack of action. Deciding to not act is a moral decision that can be judged on its merit or lack of merit but it is not an action. Killing someone is an action not killing them or not rescuing them from whatever situation they are in is not an action. One cannot reasonably be held responsible for the death of someone one did not cause harm to but also did not rescue from harm but one may well be considered deplorable for refusing to rescue a person when one had the capacity and opportunity to do so. In the OPs comparison the person refusing to help was not the cause of the unpleasant situation just not the solution but the killer was the cause. In one case the killer only need to choose inaction in order for no harm to be done. In the other case, inaction does not cause the problem, it fails to solve it, but the problem itself exists apart from the person choosing not to help.

 

[KWCrazy]

Which is more evil, putting a bullet through the head of a terrorist or doing nothing while he decapitates people, kidnaps and rapes young girls then sells them for sex slaves, and murders the innocent?

That seems more relevant.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Which is more evil, putting a bullet through the head of a terrorist or doing nothing while he decapitates people, kidnaps and rapes young girls then sells them for sex slaves, and murders the innocent?

That seems more relevant.

Perhaps you should start a thread on it then?

 

[Hank77]

I was just wondering if people saw a difference between actively doing evil and doing evil by inaction.

If one killed a person out right then they have no chance at all.
If one ignores a person that needs care it is definitely evil, but at least they are still alive for someone else to help them. ie. the parable of the Good Samaritan

 

[paul1149]

If one killed a person out right then they have no chance at all.
If one ignores a person that needs care it is definitely evil, but at least they are still alive for someone else to help them. ie. the parable of the Good Samaritan

I agree with this. To take a life is worse than not to help a life, generally. If you absolutely knew you were the last chance for saving a person, the two probably get pretty close in severity.

But also, God knows the intentions of the heart, and weighs the motives behind what we do. As James says, if anyone knows to do good, and does not do it, it is sin to him.

 

[Hank77]

I agree with this. To take a life is worse than not to help a life, generally. If you absolutely knew you were the last chance for saving a person, the two probably get pretty close in severity.

I think if you knew that no one else would help him then it is the same as if you had out and out killed him.
Either way, I believe it is a sin not to help, even if you knew someone else would help him.
So I think we agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Consider the following hypothetical situations.

1. A man is walking down the street. He sees another man standing by the side of the street. This second man is unarmed, non-threatening, and innocent. The first man takes out a gun and shoots the second man, killing him.

2. A man is walking through the desert. He sees another man who is dying of thirst. The first man is carrying plenty of water for both of them, and could be easily call in help to take the second man to a hospital in minutes. Instead, he completely ignores the dying man, leaving him to his fate.

More evil?? This question seems rather arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Strathos]

More evil?? This question seems rather arbitrary and subjective.

So give your opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So give your opinion.

I can't say I have one on the matter...I don't really believe in "evil" in the common vernacular of the word.

I would say that both actions are morally wrong in my opinion...but that's it. Wrong is wrong...I think the whole notion that something could be "more wrong" morally than something else is an emotional response, not a logical/rational one.

In your scenario, both actions are morally wrong, just in different ways...even though they both result in someone's death.

Frankly though, I think you could've used a better example of the "killing someone vs letting them die" moral question. The one that I know of, from a research experiment, involves a trolley.

A trolley is heading down the tracks toward a group of five people who aren't aware of it. If it continues down the tracks, it will kill those five people. You see this, and realize that you can send it down another track by flipping the switch in front of you...however, the other track it will go down will still kill one man who is unaware of the trolley. You only have time to flip the switch or not.

The other scenario involves pushing one man onto the tracks to stop the trolley from hitting the other five. The trolley will stop once it hits the man...saving the other five down the tracks, but if you don't push him, it will continue down the tracks and kill those five.


In each scenario, one or five men will die, depending on what actions you do or do not take...
What would you do in each scenario and why?

 

[Hank77]

In your scenario, both actions are morally wrong, just in different ways...even though they both result in someone's death.

If in the second case the OP said that the man's fate was death, I would agree with you. But it doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Consider the following hypothetical situations.

1. A man is walking down the street. He sees another man standing by the side of the street. This second man is unarmed, non-threatening, and innocent. The first man takes out a gun and shoots the second man, killing him.

2. A man is walking through the desert. He sees another man who is dying of thirst. The first man is carrying plenty of water for both of them, and could be easily call in help to take the second man to a hospital in minutes. Instead, he completely ignores the dying man, leaving him to his fate.

My gut says that 1 is more evil, for the simple fact that it requires the concious decision and purposeful action to kill a man.

2 is, at best, indirect murder - if you even would call it 'murder' (i wouldn't).