In response to Brian - Full post can be found here - http://onpunchingpuppies.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-there-significant-moral-difference.html
The bare difference theory requires that all else in the scenario be equal.
In the first scenario; A man kills the starving man (SM) with a gun - we can agree that he is guilty of the SM's death.
In the second scenario; Hundred of people walk down the street neglecting to feed the SM, this results in his death.
The difference between the first and the second scenario is that the second scenario welcomes other people. In order to show the lack of difference between killing and letting die, you would have to isolate those two characters again. If the first man came across the starving man and had the ability to help this person, but chose not to, I would argue that he is just as guilty of the starving man's death, as the person who kills with the gun.
To entertain the question of would all the people who, walking in a busy city, pass by the starving man be murders; I would say that they are not quite murders, in that there is the chance that someone else could help the person. If, however, each person could read every other person's mind and know that nobody else would help him, then each one of them, given they had the ability to help, would be just as guilty of his death. *Additionally, when one takes self interests into account, you are varying the scenario beyond repair
No comments:
Post a Comment