So this is just a thought experiment. lets say you have two people and a pool. one person fell in the deep end and is clearly drowning. The person not in the pool sees this and is perfectly capable of swimming themselves just doesn't do anything to try saving them and there's no one else around to help.
Is the person who decides not to do something to save them morally wrong for not doing so? Basically asking is it morally wrong and worthy of condemnation for a persons inaction as opposed to someones actions. Would you even say this person is responsible for them dying?
if you can please post your reasoning for what you voted for in the poll here.
Yes the person who failed to act is morally wrong for not doing so and responsible for them drowning
They are morally wrong but not responsible for them drowning
They are neither morally wrong for their inaction nor responsible for the person drowning
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
Just clarifying im not asking about legality here, strictly morally here.
Updates
+1 y
Lots of different answers. I dig it
Ethical question: If someone who can swim sees another person clearly drowning and just doesn't try to save them are they morally wrong?
For the generic person, there is no legal compulsion to save and rightfully so because the person who is drowning may, from the perspective of the swimmer, be in a dangerous riptide or being attacked by sharks or whatever.
However, for the lifeguard, he or she MUST act because they have a "higher ethical standard" due to the nature of their job.
This very issue about the drowning swimmer is used in the last minutes of "The Enemy Within", the tenth episode of the first season of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent".
In that episode, a male registered nurse named Rick Zainer is under the employ of a rich paranoid man named Harold Sternman. Zainer, upset with Sternman treating Zainer like shit and not helping his family when he asked for something minor, sets it up so the Sternman is killed by Sternman's wife, Kit, and son, Edward. Zainer didn't have to do anything - just let it happen - and Sternman would die which he did.
The detectives, Robert Goren and Alexandra Eames, follow the clues until they get to Zainer and, in the last 5 minutes or so of the episode, talk to Zainer in the interview room one last time. Goren spells out what they know and allude to Zainer that they admire his intelligence at basically committing a murder in which he had no responsibility. Zainer, believing that he has committed the perfect crime essentially admits he did set things up but had no responsibility in Sternman's death.
This is when the detectives, realizing Zainer essentially confessed, tell Zainer the story of the lifeguard at Jones Beach... The lifeguard saw a drowning man and did nothing because he was talking to a girl. He was convicted of manslaughter because, being a lifeguard, "he had a higher standard of duty than other people. He couldn't walk away... and neither could you.", Goren says.
"What are you talking about?" asks Zainer.
Eames then reminds Zainer of his nursing contract with Sternman including ".. and to care for the health and wellfare of Harold Sternman."
"You watched the forces gather around Sternman... to kill him.", says Goren.
"But I didn't do anything.", defends Zainer.
Goren: "That's right. You did NOTHING. You watched it happen. And that, my friend... is manslaughter."
Zainer, tearing up: "But he owed me."
Goren: "He owed you the salary he paid you."
Goren opens the interview room door and cops are waiting to take Zainer away.
====================
Meanwhile, why are you asking this question? What is the point? How does it help you? This is an advice site - not a philosophy or ethics class.
That's a good question, and there are some factors to consider before determining a verdict.
Without the proper training, simply diving into the water to rescue a drowning person would most likely be fatal to both parties. A panicked person will cling to their would-be savior, and ultimately make it impossible for a rescue to take place. Sometimes even the best intentions have negative consequences.
Ideally, the best course of action would be to try and save the person in question by throwing them something buoyant to which they can grab onto, and then pull them in. Failing that, reaching them with a long, sturdy object for them to grasp, and then be pulled to safety would be the next best option.
If those were not options, leaving the only available choice as the one that endangers both people, and thus make matters worse, I would say the moral & ethical consideratiins would be minimal. If someone was trapped on the 40th floor of a burning building, and there was no reasonable chance of rescuing them, onlookers would not be guilty of inaction. There's simply nothing they can do.
If there are alternatives, such as I listed above, and the person could rescue the drowning swimming with minimal/reasonable risk to themselves, but simply opts to walk away, then yes; I think they would be guilty of an ethical/moral failing.
Morally, I would say you are a partial cause, but not the main cause. But it would depend on many questions (can you swim?; Is the situation so dangerous you’re likely to die in the attempt?; is there someone more qualified to help nearby, such as a lifeguard, you could tell about it?, etc). So morally, I don’t know. I guess it depends on the circumstances. Legally though, I know a little more about it. An important thing in determining legal responsibility is whether you give the person any reason to think that you were going to try to rescue them or help them in some other way (eg go get help) and then don’t actually do so. In that case, you could be legally held responsible. The reasoning behind this is that if you take some action or appear to take some action, this may prevent others from helping because they think you are going to. It might also might cause the victim to not try to help himself as much as he would otherwise (eg believing that it’s better not to exhaust themself swimming and better to just tread water and wait for your rescue). However, beyond that, you have, no legal responsibility to endanger yourself to rescue a stranger. That said, just how a jury might react to you watching a person drown (assuming you can swim and the danger to yourself was minimal), could be…unpredictable. There’s a thing called jury nullification. That’s when the jury basically ignores the judge’s instructions about the law because they think the law is incorrect in this instance. It’s not common, but it’s not unheard of either.
Morally perhaps. But being able to swim is not the same as being able to save someone from drowning. It's hard to save someone without a flotation device. I've had the horror of trying to save a friend in a wave pool, the life guard wasn't doing shit so I swam out there and took a floating thing from a kid in the shallow end.
Morally wrong if you don't try get help definitely. If you just stand there and watch a person drown that's morally fucked up. Though you're not legally obligated to save someones life, you couldn't be charged for anything.
What you're REALLY asking is does Society LEGALLY impose an affirmative obligation to intervene if One possesses the physical capacity to 'save' another's life. Could you merely stand by, voyeuristically observing as a passive bystander to another's potentially life-ending misadventure.
In US law there exists a legal precedent: the rape and murder of Ms. Kitty Genovese in NYC where for HOURS nearby tenement neighbors hung out of their apartment windows and luridly witnessed her sadistic rape and eventual stabbing without intervening or even summoning law enforcement til her demise. In affect, how obligated is One to place one's own safety at risk IF... and this is a HUGE 'if' ... it is within One's means to intervene. The answer is defined in the charge of "CRIMINAL vs contributory negligence".
Historically, the answer is based upon legal precedent jurisprudence in which forensics & testimony is lain before a "JURY of One's peers" and the issue is NOT what was or was not done, but instead what can be 'PROVEN' beyond a shadow of a doubt' in less inflammatory circumstances, cooler heads prevailing unburdened by pressing immediate time constraints of circumstance. Which I'm sure is of NO consolation to either the deceased Ms. Genovese or the drowning person.
HOWEVER, Karma is a bitch with teething puppies!~ Those who choose self-servingly, spend the rest their days seeking to rationalize their decisions. It is one thing to have given best efforts and yet failed; but to NOT have at least TRIED? !!! "Semper temptare" (ALWAYS to at least to try)
Morally wrong sure. But I don't think legally anything should happen to them. If we start using the whole thing we have to legally help each other, then I'm gonna be the first one to point out that most people just walk past a starving homeless person is it also ones own fault if he dies from starving or coldness during that night even tho they could of took him for the night?
Then what if one did take him in? is that safe for the person who does, maybe everything would be sweet and dandy or he robs you or something else. What about if someone is been robbed in front of you gunpoint? do you interrupt to maybe get yourself shot or the victim of been robbed?
Now here's a wacky but possible one what about you try to stop the drowning of the person but it backfires and welp now you did too. They pulled you with them or whatever else.
It becomes a hypocrite mess that could also just do more damage. Now if everyone was living in a utopia of same wealth and equality then we wouldn't have to worry about all the poor people that just don't get help. But there would still be many problems with the theory of you must help someone.
Another great examples would be drug addicts and alcohols now should you help them get off it so they don't die? Meanwhile letting them abuse you, steal and just overall ruin your life?
Now a more direct saving someone who is literally dying in front of them might be a bit different to someone taking drugs over time. But eh I would see the issue as still a issue of not helping someone who needs it. So while it maybe morally wrong it can also be the correct or wrong actual choice to do so.
Morally yes they would be wrong. It is human instinct to value life. If I knew how to swim and did not attempt to save someone who is drowning I'd regret it for the rest of my life, thinking about what-if I had acted. We do not know why that person is in the water without being able to swim. All we know is we have the ability to help and whether we decide to use that ability or not shows a lot about our character. If I made the attempt to save them but gave up because they were fighting too much and it looked like they would kill us both then I could live with myself because at least I tried. For most people without rescue training this would be good enough and nobody would fault you for trying but failing.
However, having been trained to rescue other sailors in the water, I would know to knock that person out, drag them to shore/the ship then treat them.
The short answer is if you did not act within the powers and abilities you possessed at the time to help someone just because you did not want to and they ended up dead then it would be morally wrong.
No. I don’t think you have a moral obligation to get involved. Suppose you were morally responsible for your inaction and that a human life is of much greater value than saving your money is. Suppose this following scenario. Your bank is burning and every minute you waste means you lose 1 dollar. You rush to the bank, but on the way, you spot a lake with an infinite amount of people drowning. It takes you 1 minute to save each drowning person, but at the expense of one dollar? How many people should you save? It seems the assumptions we made above imply you should keep saving people until you only have enough money to sustain what is necessary for you to survive, since any additional dollar not necessary to keep you alive is a minute that you could’ve saved another life, which you were obligated to do. Well this analogy is similar to real life charity, where there is practically a limitless amount of people who are dying and a relatively low monetary cost. But certainly you are entitled to more of your money than what simply keeps you alive. That is why I don’t think it’s an obligation that is universal with everyone.
Things are different if you made an explicit obligation (for example if you became a lifeguard). If you’re a lifeguard, you agreed to save people who are drowning and failure to act would be in a sense a breach of your agreement.
I can only answer this personally... and I would feel very responsible myself if I did absolutely nothing to help someone else that's clearly dying, especially if it is a pool and not an aggressive/hungry shark infested ocean
I understand there could be some situations in which helping, would put my own life in danger but I just cannot think of one that it would stop me or might kill me... not to the point in which I would just look away and ignore the fact that someone is about to die in front of me, I don't want to live with that in my conscience either
1. Is there any object around you can reach out to him to pull him in?
2. How deep is the pool?
3. How large is he compared to the person watching?
4. How erratic is he flailing?
5. Is calling for help an option?
Assuming the most benign scenario. Saying he can't swim and the pool is like 7ft deep. Same size. No object around. No one in shouting distance. Guy is drowning but not crazy looking.
While I wouldn't hold him legally liable. I'd consider him a piece of shit or sociopathic if he didn't at least have the excuse of fear of not knowing what to do and being in shock.
Some people just go into shock during times like that because they're overwhelmed. So if it's that I can't say he's wrong. He was just afflicted by fear. But to have ability and mental space to act. That's different.
Bit if it's say a little girl and a 230lb man drowning. With him flailing he might drown her if she tries to help.
I would say there could be additional factors at play here. Is it safe for the other person to attempt to save the person. Do they have legitimate reason not to attempt to save the person. If other factors are ruled out and not part of the conditions of this rescue, and the other person has the ability to save the person safely and doesn't, then yes it is morally wrong. But unless in a position of responsibility no person has a legal liability to save the other, and can't be held accountable for that person's safety, and assuming that the other person wasn't responsible for the original position of the drowning person, they can't under law be found responsible for the final outcome.
You have a moral (and in some countries, legal) obligation to help them to the best of your abilities, without endangering yourself.
Entering the water to help someone who is drowning, is a bad example, since it does involve endangering yourself (that's why the proper protocol is reach/throw/row/go, and why lifeguards learn releases/escapes - but that's probably beyond the scope of your question).
But suppose there's a life-ring nearby that you could throw to them, but you consciously choose not to (I guess some people might just panic and freeze in that situation) - in that case, yes, you are certainly morally in the wrong, and at least partially responsible for the death.
10.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
No and it's not really the moral dilemma you think it is.
Being able to swim and being able to rescue are two very different things. Not everyone with a capability by default also has the ability to save. It's why you call live guards/police and not just ask around and waste time hoping for an off duty one.
In most cases, the latter will lead to you both drowning.
It's also why you're told to put on your own mask before helping others in the event of an oxygen drop in airplanes.
If you had a chance to save someone's life? if you just stand there take pictures about it and share it on your story like yeah thats of course its morally wrong, just letting someone die knowing you could've saved them, and yes I feel like they should be responsible for their death too because they clearly had a chance to save them but they didn't (unless they had some reasons why they couldn't have jumped in (like can't swim, etc)) like just think about it.
It depends. What did the guy in the pool do? If he did something irredeemable, then just let him drown. That's just him getting what's coming to him. If he's a friend or someone that the person outside of the pool knows has a good heart then yeah it's pretty fucked up not to help.
so if the person drowning is a terrible person its not morally wrong to let him drown, where as if he is a good person it is wrong to not try to save them?
Yeah I mean it's morally best to let bad things happen to bad people if it occurs without your interference. For example, if a murderer gets chased down by a bear while you're out hunting, it's best to let the bear kill him and not get involved in my opinion.
Morally wrong, probably. But in this scenario, one can argue that while one is an excellent swimmer, he/she doesn't have experience in rescuing/"dragging" a person, let alone a panicked one to safety. If he/she does try to do so, 2 lives could be in danger instead of one.
My diver friend told me that there was an instance when a fellow diver started drowning. They could not pull him because of the panic he's in to, so they literally knocked him out, put their oxygen mask to him and swam to the surface, dragging him.
Morally wrong most likely. My personal experience with a youngster in trouble & close to drowning. There was 12 - 15 adults not counting the 8-10 other kids swimming. No one seemed to notice the child struggling not even the parents. I had already dove in swam out & pulled little girl 1/2 way back to the dock before anyone else even reacted. Even a small child is a handful. I know I could have never done it with an adult. Case in point a few years back a tourist was swimming where they shouldn't have been. Strong undercurrents he got into trouble. Two of his friends jumped in to try & save him. All 3 drown.
All depends on context; is the person drowning larger than the swimmer, is the swimmer strong enough to save both of them if the other person is flailing, is the drowning person intoxicated/drugged/acting erratic, etc. A few years ago some teenage girls stole a car, led the police in pursuit and the drove into a lake or reservoir in the middle of the night. They ended up drowning and some people wanted to blame the police for not saving them in a timely manner but hey, they created a dangerous situation and if the police couldn't reach them in time w/o endangering themselves that's on the girls.
C, 'They are neither morally wrong for their inaction nor responsible for the person drowning' They are responsible for their own safety first, if there is another way for them to render aid without entering the water (Life-ring, or throw line) then that is a different proposition.
Morally, it is kind of fucked up to let them drown if you can swim. Possibly because of the bystander effect and fear of drowning to save them, but that is pretty shitty to not try and help someone on that situation.
This one hits a little close to home since I lost a soldier to a drowning when they were off duty.
Unless you are trained to help the best you can do is call for help. The reason bring is that when you try to save a drowning person they generally panic. When they do that their survival mode kicks in, that often leads to them using you as a human life boat. They will and can end up causing you to drown.
I don't recommend leaving someone to die but I also suggest proceeding with caution.
As someone with that training, here is the correct course of action: Try to help if you can get to a position to knock them out. When they are unconscious you can save them without interference. If you do not think you can knock them out, then use your best judgement as to whether or not you feel safe trying to help. Yes, it might sound cruel to knock someone out, but doing so allows you to then rescue them without their panic putting you both in danger. It is better to rescue them and have to treat them for whatever injury you may cause than it is to let them die. A hit to the head can be treated, death cannot.
Morally wrong for sure. I understand it's not ad easy to save someone from drowning as it seems, but I couldn't sit there and do nothing. And I can't swim. I had an incident myself this past summer that if it weren't for my friend and her husband being there, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be responding to this question right now.
Tons of people die all the time trying to save someone that they are not equipped to save. If someone was drowning I would do what I could try safely try to rescue them, but I have a family to care for. If I died because I entered a dangerous situation with out thinking, there would be two dead people instead of one.. how does that help anyone. The first rule as an emergency rescuer is to check your surrounding and make sure it is safe, and if it’s not, don’t put yourself in an unsafe situation because it just makes things worse. This is something they teach you when you learn first aid, cpr, lifeguarding, EMT and Paramedic.
@Subarugirl ok? I answered using MY thoughts. And I clearly said that saving someone is harder than you think. I couldn't sit and watch someone drown. That's it and that's all.
As a good swimmer myself, I'd choose to help if there's nobody else around to help regardless of how dangerous it might be for myself. (I have already saved someone from drowning before.) I might not be able to live with my guilt if I allowed someone to die due to a drowning I could have saved her or him from. However, I don't believe the blame for her or his death should fall on me.
I picked they’re morally wrong but not responsible for them drowning. They shouldn’t attempt a rescue unless they’re trained to do so as they’ll just both drown though. Throwing something that floats/several objects that float at the drowning person is about the best they can do without advanced training and they should at least try that though.
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > Ethical question: If someone who can swim sees another person clearly drowning and just doesn't try to save them are they morally wrong?
