When is inaction immoral

and how does this affect your ideas on freedom?

Are we completely free not to act in situations that raise ethical issues?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Conscience .

One ought to act every time his or her conscience does not support what is happening . Their actions should be in their reach and according to the laws of the land . Example : you think a war is wrong so do something about it like peaceful demonstrations , elect politicians who are not wars mongers ; you see a bully, be a witness....etc .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inaction is generally considered immoral if your inaction leads to the harm of another and your action posed no direct threat to you. Beyond that is a matter of much debate and little consensus.

It has no impact on your freedom since you aren't being constrained to take a moral course.

Legally certain professionals are required to render assistance if they can, but they volluntarily choose to be in those professions so their freedom is again not constrained.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An example would be if you were a firefighter and went to a burning home and wouldn't go into it to save a persons life.

 

I agree. But now, ....what if the person was just a plain ol' citizen?

One of my problems with "morality" is that it's so damned convertible! One man thinks it's okay, another is horrified about it ...and worse, neither can agree on what "it" is! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

It would NOT be immoral not to go into a burning house if you were a plain Ol' citizen, that's a CHOICE that you have, not your job to do. Say that you have a wife and kids, and your not in good health either, why risk losing your life as well as that persons in the burning house? It is a very hard choice to make and only you can make it.

 

Yeah, I agree with you. But lest we forget, there are oodles of people who would call that inaction by the plain ol' citizen as "immoral" ....that he should have tried to help, etc.

See? That's what I hate about discussing morals and ethics! It's almost as if anything and everything goes ....depending on how far you wish to take it.

I still say that morals and ethics come from the muzzle of a gun! And the one with the biggest gun or the most guns, is the one to determine morals and ethics.

Baron Max

 

Morals and ethics are determined by the society in which you live. Choices are also determined by who you are as well.

 

Agreed. But those morals and ethics ain't nothin' unless they're enforced in some way. Which is usually by the police with guns!

I've never liked that statement because it sorta' means/implies that even if you were raised by wolves in the deep, dark forest, you'd be the same .....and we all know that that ain't even close to the truth.

What determines "who" you are is your parents, the social group you grow up with, the schools, your peers, etc. Yes, yes, you can be the "Rebel without a Cause", but there just ain't many of them, are there?

Baron Max

 

to a certain extent i agree with barron, morals are internal and there for it depends on the person. For instance there is no legal requirement for my partner or myself to stop and help at a car acident, however to me it would be immoral if i didnt. My partner on the other hand wouldnt do more than call the ambulance and then drive on because she couldnt handle it. There are situations where i could understand someone trained to deal with it (not nessarly proffessionally trainned either) not stopping to help. For instance if they had children in the car with them and stopping would mean exposing them to something the adult knew they couldnt handle

 

Inaction cannot be immoral. It can be cowardly and demonstrate a lack of character, sometimes, but immoral? No. It's non action.

 

umm norse you are contradicting your self

why is cowarious bad? (because its judged to be immoral)
what does "a lack of charater" mean? that they lack micky mouse? there is another term used here "lack of moral fiber" because thats what your talking about, people who are judged to lack essential moral standards

 

Just because someone doesn't want to take a risk and lose their own life, doesn't mean they are "immoral", it only means they choose not to take the risk is all.

 

No cowardice is bad because it displays a lack of strength and will, not because it's "immoral"

 

what cowards cant lift boxes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

come on, actally dig into the use of the word. Strength ACTUALLY means physical strength so what does it really mean to use it as "mental strength"?
what does "will" actually mean?

most importantly what are you judging it against?

cosmictraveler your not always talking about risking life. For instance say you were a postman and you took a letter to a nursing home and found the residents stuck in bean bags, covered in there own urine and feases while the staff sat around drinking coffee. Do you report it to the department of health and aging? your life certainly isnt at risk if you do, it comes down to wether you want to "get involved"

the same thing if you saw a parent assulting their child, yes if you went up to them and said something that might put you in some danger but if you knew them and chose to call the cops or DOCS it wouldnt. Again its a case of do you "get involved" not about putting yourself on the line

 

I mean "strength" as in courage; strength, as in, the ability to stand up to what you find wrong.

Not standing up to it isn't wrong in itself, it's just cowardly.

 

based on WHAT???????

come on actually look at your own moral code and recognise it for what it is!!!

 

I do recognize that morals are subjective, Asguard.

 

thats nither here nor there. I was in a situation like this, i went to help a guy who had just come off his motorbike because i was trainned in first aid (it was a little out of date then but *shrug*) however when i saw the extent of his injuries i ran away (on the pretense of going to get my mobile to call an ambulance). Objectivly there was a) nothing i could have done, the guy was dead and b) i was having a panic atack which i no fault of my own. However i felt terrible afterwards, because IT WENT AGAINST MY MORAL CODE TO DO NOTHING.

Thats what cowardious is, acting against either your own or sociaties moral code

 

Yes, I know, that's what I said; but cowardice and inaction in itself is not immoral.