Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ethical question: If someone who can swim sees another person clearly drowning and just doesn't try to save them are they morally wrong? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
40Opinion
A pool is a pretty safe environment. I would expect a swimmer to aid a non-swimmer in a pool. But I’m not an expert in water rescue so it may be riskier than I know.
If someone is in trouble in dangerous waters, then no one has an obligation to put themselves at risk.
Would you even say this person is responsible for them dying? No. It's not me whom put them in that situation that leads to their death.
Even if no one else is there, it's a guilt/thought i have to live with the rest of my life, that is where the moral part hits. They are morally wrong but not responsible for them drowning
Not everyone is a strong enough swimmer to save someone from drowning. Unless you have had lifeguard training you probably shouldn't try to save someone from drowning; outside of tossing them a line or flotation device. As they are likely to pull you down with them.
Being able to swim and being able to save someone are two different things. I don't think it's morally wrong not to try and save the person especially if no one is around. The best option and the wise option might be calling for help instead of jumping in and having two dead people.
There was a similar case in the UK a few years ago when a police officer refused to save someone drowning in a shallow pond because he never had the correct health and safety training.
I would consider it an act of murder through non intervention
Incidentally the man in your photo isn't drowning. Drowning people don't wave or shout. Most people drown right next to people who don't even know whats going on
They are morally wrong but arguably not responsible. It is possible they were worried for their own life and/or they themselves panicked and froze up. It also possible they are just a psychopath and don’t care or worse enjoyed watching them drown.
Sadly people like that do exist in this world. Either way they would most likely shunned from society for life (and rightfully so).
Unless there's significant danger to yourself, I'd say you should try to help. If it's a swimming pool, there's no significant danger other than the drowning person, which is why you should approach them from behind.
But if the person doesn’t try to help is what im asking
I wouldn't throw them in prison, but I wouldn't think much of them.
As a rescue swimmer, I can tell you that not everyone is mentally or physically equipped to risk their lives trying to save someone. You need to have the proper training to rescue someone that is panicked while drowning. They WILL try to shove you under as they attempt to stay above the water.
I believe that's considered "homicidio por omisión" in some countries (don't know how to say it properly in English, if such term is actually used) when you can do something to prevent someone's death by helping but choose not to. Yes, it's wrong, even if it may not carry a legal penalty.
That only applies if you can help that person without putting your self in danger.
Depends. If you haven't been trained in water safety techniques, which is a whole different way of swimming both with and without equipment, chances are both would have to be rescued. But not trying to get help would be the big no-no if you spot someone who appears to be drowning.
At that point, the question of morality and responsibility becomes subjective. It is a personal choice that involves far-reaching echos of potential regret. Though in reality, they can not be held at fault by anyone but themselves.
If you can swim I couldnt understand why anyone wouldn't try to save someones life, or not just with this but anything that doesn't inheritly really put their life in danger sure I understand if there was a dangerous animal in the water or an armed person causing trouble but its pretty cold if someone just let someone die
No, not wrong. No person has a responsibility to risk their own life to save others. I would feel like it was wrong for a bystander to not at least call 911 though.
Depends on the context. If you are in a swimming pool or at the beach in calm waters just a few meters away from him, it would def. be wrong to not help.
But if he is caught in rough waters, a drowning machine (in front a weir) or in strong flood currents with debris, its better to leave it to experts otherwise you could die as well
They have not initiated aggression against anyone so they are not morally wrong, but if they have the skills to save them and do nothing then they are not as moral as they could be. Still, they are not responsible as they did not create this situation
Well if I have shoes and socks on I don't want to get them wet. There will be other people drowning on other days that I might get to save if I'm barefoot.
But shoes will always be messed up and dry badly and have that weird smell if I jump in with shoes and socks.
My socks!
I would say they're morally wrong because they could have saved the other person. However I wouldn't say they're responsible since they didn't push the person.
I would absolutely try to save their life. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I just let someone die.
but the question is asking what if someone didn't try? is their inaction morally wrong in your eyes?
I think it’s unrealistic for someone who is 120 pounds to safely rescue someone who is 200 pounds or more but, depending on the situation, I would try to do anything to save their life, even if it’s just trying to find someone else who can help.
this is a hypothetical so it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. im asking if a person DOES fail to act is that morally wrong in this hypothetical?
Yeah I do think it’s morally wrong to not act at all.
Yeah but the person is still risking something cause the one who’s drowning could panic and pull them down and kill them both
Inaction doesn't make someone responsible for something they didn't start, but morally wrong to not take action when capable of doing something.