Which act is more evil?

[Phil 1:21]

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.

Jesus disagrees.

Matthew 25:41-43

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’”

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

I thought it was implied that without any help, he dies. Does not being certain of his fate make you less culpable?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Jesus disagrees.

Matthew 25:41-43

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’”

I don't see that as Jesus disagreeing with what I said. Jesus does not say the person He wants to depart from him is responsible for the plight of those that person did not help. He is saying that a person disinclined to help others does not belong in His company even if such a person was in no way responsible for the plight of those needing to be helped. Responsibility and callousness are two different things. Jesus is telling us that if we are to be included among His followers we are not only to help those whose plight we are responsible for we are also to help those who are hurting which we were not responsible for harming.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I don't see that as Jesus disagreeing with what I said. Jesus does not say the person He wants to depart from him is responsible for the plight of those that person did not help. He is saying that a person disinclined to help others does not belong in His company even if such a person was in no way responsible for the plight of those needing to be helped. Responsibility and callousness are two different things. Jesus is telling us that if we are to be included among His followers we are not only to help those whose plight we are responsible for we are also to help those who are hurting which we were not responsible for harming.

I understand what you're saying, but honestly, it seems to me like you're playing semantics. Like we're going to get into a discussion about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

[Rubiks]

The man who shot is more evil because he actually made a decision to do work. The issue with the other man is his lack of action.

Examples of the second case in real life aren't that uncommon; people are afraid of getting sued by accidentally injuring someone else.

I understand what you're saying, but honestly, it seems to me like you're playing semantics. Like we're going to get into a discussion about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Is it the Bill Clinton definition of "is" ?

 

[zephcom]

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.

I read through the comments up to now. While some thought the first man was 'more evil' than the second, nearly everyone considered the second man was, indeed, committing evil.

I don't know if you meant for your second man to closely resemble real life in America today, but I was aware of the similarity of that man's actions and the actions of the leaders in Congress and the President as they try over and over again to withhold medical care from people like the victim in your second example who simply does not have the resources to save himself and will die without assistance of some kind.

And most of those leaders spend Sunday mornings in a church.....

 

[Introverted1293]

Both are equally murderous in my opinion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I understand what you're saying, but honestly, it seems to me like you're playing semantics. Like we're going to get into a discussion about what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Not at all. the word is means is no matter how a crooked politician wants to spin it to mean something else. Being responsible for a situation is not in any way the same thing as not being responsible for a situation no matter what one's religion expects of one in response to the situation.

 

[quatona]

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.

I don´t know how to calculate the degree of "evil". But even if there were such a scale from 1 to 10, on which one of the actions were, say, 8 and the other 9 - what would that insight help me with?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don´t know how to calculate the degree of "evil". But even if there were such a scale from 1 to 10, on which one of the actions were, say, 8 and the other 9 - what would that insight help me with?

Excellent point. If something is evil don't do it. Do not need to know how evil it is. If do nothing is evil do something. Do not need to know how evil it is in compared to something else.

In the OP scenario though I think it is assumed that both acts are evil. To me that would suggest that both persons decided to do what they did in order to intentionally cause harm to another person for the purpose of causing harm to others for one's own pleasure. That would be my definition of evil. My apologies to Ana the Ist but I disagree with his opinion that evil is not a real thing. In the real world, we can usually not say with certainty which actions or inaction are evil and which actions or inactions are simply wrong or immoral but do not qualify as evil. There are some that seem obvious and others in which we would have to examine the motives of the actor in question before determining. In the OP the first actor seems to be obviously perpetrating an evil act.i.e. shooting another person for no apparent reason other than "just to watch him die" as Johnny Cash once sang. There could be a possibility that the shooting was not intentionally evil but born of fear or desperation rather than purely ill intent but the OP says it is evil and the OP is an honorable person so we must accept that it is evil. The second non actor however would pose a more difficult question if the OP had not pronounced his inaction evil. Had we not known that the inactor was motivated by purely evil intent we might consider the possibility that he feared the other person was feigning weakness in order to harm him or steal his supply of water so coming near might endanger the inactor. The inactor might have simply felt his supply was only enough for him and giving any to the other person would cause both to die of thirst in the end. The inactor might have believed that the other person was truly in need but in desperation might take everything from him (i.e. the inactor) and leave him in the same state as he had found the other person. The OP tells us the inactor had sufficient supply for both but the inactor may not have gotten the OP's assessment and may not have believed that assessment if he had. Determining for someone else how much that person needs is a tricky thing and opinions might well vary on the subject. Most people will decide they actually need more than other people think they need and decide other people do not need as much as the other people think they need.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I read through the comments up to now. While some thought the first man was 'more evil' than the second, nearly everyone considered the second man was, indeed, committing evil.

I don't know if you meant for your second man to closely resemble real life in America today, but I was aware of the similarity of that man's actions and the actions of the leaders in Congress and the President as they try over and over again to withhold medical care from people like the victim in your second example who simply does not have the resources to save himself and will die without assistance of some kind.

And most of those leaders spend Sunday mornings in a church.....

Though this is a compete derail of the thread but I can't let a purely false statement go unchallenged. No one is attempting to withhold medical care from anyone. That is simply false. The debate in Congress has been about health insurance not health care. As much as some people wish to make the two synonymous they are not. Additionally, no one is even attempting to withhold health insurance from anyone. All that is being debated is whether Obamacare should be discontinued and replaced with something else. Demonizing those who take a different position on the issue is unhelpfiul at best.

I would ask people to reasonably research and assess the entire insurance program question along with all possible alternatives to the present system and not simply parrot emotion based talking points unrelated to reality. Surely no one thinks Obamacare is the best possible way to do this. After all, if it were that good we would not have to use the coercive power of government to force people to comply with it. Sorry for the interruption, now let us proceed on the actual OP topic.