Deliberate inaction judged as immoral as wrong action

[n2doc]

30 April 2011
Magazine issue 2810.
DOING nothing to stop a crime can be seen by others to be as bad as committing the crime directly.

So says Peter DeScioli at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, who presented students with a number of scenarios that led to a fatality. An actor whose hesitancy to act led to the death was seen as less immoral than an actor whose direct actions led to the death. But the students judged deliberate inaction that led to the fatality as equally immoral as direct action that caused the death (Evolution and Human Behavior, DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.01.003).

DeScioli thinks the results show we see inaction as less immoral only because we typically lack proof that it was deliberate.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028105.600-deliberate-inaction-judged-as-immoral-as-wrong-action.html

Congressional Dems, are you listening?

[gotme188k]

1. I used to believe that

I used to believe that if a person did nothing to stop a crime they were just as guilty. I have changed my view on that somewhat. When I went to get my first aide/cpr class I was shown how when an accident occurs people stand there and do nothing like deer in a head light. Not because they want to, but because they don't know what to do or are shocked that it happened. I didn't believe that until a few weeks later when a young girl at the grocery store deli made a mistake with the deep fryer. She ended up having the fryer explode on here I watched for about 3 seconds and noticed that everyone was standing there doing nothing. I sprang into action as well as a volunteer firefighter and we got the situation taken care of. My point with this example, although seemingly unrelated, is that a lot of times people don't seem to recognize the the infraction or can't believe the horrific nature of what they are confronted with due to the situation being so far out of their world view that it renders them powerless to do anything. I might be wrong just an observation.

gotme188k
me humble website

[RickFromMN]

2. We're afraid we will do the wrong thing and make matters worse and we'll get sued.

We do fear something bad "might" happen to us if we help.
We're afraid we'll be sued for doing the wrong thing.

Laws vary, from state to state, and country to country on this.
Some countries require you help, such as France.
Some states, like Minnesota and Vermont, will fine you, if you do not help.

Please read through the following URLs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Under the Good_Samaratin_law URL, it is discouraging to note the example,
"
Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.<9> In the absence of imminent peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If a 'good Samaritan' elects to 'rescue' the victim from the wreckage, causing paralysis or some other injury, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent peril and hold the actions of the rescuer as 'reckless' and unnecessary.<10>
"

How am I to make a snap judgement whether the principle of imminent peril applies
when I never heard of the imminent peril principle before reading this wiki just now?
How do I know whether there is threat of fire or danger of a second collision?
I'm shaken up enough, by whatever is happening, to not think clearly, as it is.

I'm sure many people can relate to the saying, or should I say the curse,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_good_deed_goes_unpunished

[AndyTiedye]

3. If I Tried to Help, and Instead Made Things Worse, I'd Feel Really Bad About That

even if I didn't have to worry about getting sued.