Is letting one die the same as killing?

[chiking1]

Well, let's say that a monster or something is chasing you, and your friend, who is behind you trips. You decide not to turn back and save him, because you might die too. Is it your fault that he/she died?

The definition of to kill is to cause to die. By not helping them, is it not the same as 'causing them to die'?
Personally, I think that it isn't your fault, because if you put it in the situation when a beggar begs you to give them money, and you don't give them money, and they starve to death. It is not your fault, because they could've found a job, which is the same as the first situation. If they ran faster, then they wouldn't of died.

[SHiKaMaRi]

I reckon letting one die is the same as killing. If a monster if chasing you, and your friend trips, you just run for your life, it is your fault that your friend die. If you had turned back and gave your friend a hand, there is two possibilities:
One being you might die along with your friend,
Two being both of you successfully escaped and still breathing, alive.

[Ai]

Kill means to extinguish the life and hence cause the death of a living organism.

If you were to let someone die and you hadn't caused the act that killed them in anyway then you would not have killed them.

although in todays law it is morally and ethically wrong to let someone die as is the case for doctors and such they are not allowed legally to let someone die unless all that they could have done they tried to do including resucitation unless otherwise stated by the patient.

So in other words physically you would never be responsible for another persons death even if you are standing right next to them when they die. However legally you would probably be held responsible and therefore your would be deemed to have killed that person or attributed to killing them.

An example

I'm standing with my two friends hostage and one of the captors says to me kneel otherwise i'll shoot one of your friends. I wouldn't kneel and my friend would be killed.

In a court of law using my other friend as a witness i could be deemed responsible for causeing the death of my other friend and of killing another human being.

If you have the ability to act in an action which would stop another person being killed and you don't you become an accessory to the crime and therefore are also liable.

So in an anarchist state no you would not be held liable and depending on the worlds governmental laws in other country's you might not be held liable.

But in western countrys you can be charged as an accessory.

And shika i think you mean this

If a monster if chasing you, and you trip your friend, you just run for your life, it is your fault that your friend die.

:p

[Wolfman Walt]

Legally you may be responsible depending on the circumstances, it could be negligent homicide, manslaughter, or something similar to those. Once again, depending on the circumstances and how much control you had over the situation. So legally it may be considered murder. Ofcourse I imagine the laws would be different from place to place.

[crash5s]

No.

One is a passive action of avoiding a situation, the other is an agressive action participating in a situation.

[Hakuoro]

I believe that it would not be your fault. Dying and killing are 2 diffferent things. Dying is most of the time caused by natural means ie/ old age, heart attack, strokes etc... Killing is when someone else takes a life unnaturally and usually without good reason. So in this stuation at least if you were running and your friend tripped technically the monster would kill him and it would be the monsters fault not yours since you didnt take his life away.

[Ciel]

I think it would. Taking chiking's example, if the person fell over, and you knowing it just kept running, you let the person die, thus, you indirectly causing it. On the contrary, if you didnt know, then you cant be blamed.

But yes, in my opinion, ketting someone die is the same as killing them.

[Ai]

No it isn't..

Nothing can be said the same as killing someone unless you actually kill the person yourself.

The worst that you did was become an accessory to the crime or the action.

In laws in most country's this is the fact and unless you debate against a government and get the law changed Letting one die will never amount to killing the person yourself.

Morally you would feel like you were responsible but if you look at it with an unbiast position taking into account the laws of the country and what the definition of killing actually is you see the subtle differences.

A person that states that letting one die is the same as killing them is a person that is ruled by their moral and ethical decisions.

In a debate you should approach a subject and only look at the facts and judge it solely on those.

[Wolfman Walt]

The worst that you did was become an accessory to the crime or the action. In laws in most country's this is the fact and unless you debate against a government and get the law changed Letting one die will never amount to killing the person yourself.

Wrong - while in some cases this may be true, in others (as I've stated before) you may stand accussed of, voluntarily or involuntarily, manslaughter. An example of this is a parent who choses not to feed their child, hence letting another individual die. It's manslaughter. Other examples include assisting (in whatever capacity) of a suicide, even if you're not the trigger man and letting the person die, a majority of states rule this as manslaughter

[Rayster]

*sigh*

This can't be a right and wrong decision .. not black and white there are borders of grey as with almost everything actually.
Legally, you can get convicted for negligence or manslaughter or something like that if u don't feed the child as ppl mentioned above - but that's becasue its a law that a parent should be able to feed and house their child. The law is broken, then they get convicted.

Otherwise as with the first example...yes, if u didn't turn back i would say you killed the person because you ahd a chance to save them (if u really did. If u had absolutely no chance then no). In different contexts it can be argued that "I couldn't get there in time" "It was impossible"
but otherwise yeah, if u let someone die it should be same as u killed them - morally - but not always legally.

[Ai]

Wrong - while in some cases this may be true, in others (as I've stated before) you may stand accussed of, voluntarily or involuntarily, manslaughter. An example of this is a parent who choses not to feed their child, hence letting another individual die. It's manslaughter. Other examples include assisting (in whatever capacity) of a suicide, even if you're not the trigger man and letting the person die, a majority of states rule this as manslaughter

If a mother doesn't feed their child they are making a deliberate decision to act in a fashion which will kill the child and can be placed the blame yes..But this is a deliberate action of killing..

The title of this debate suggests that if you had nothing to do with the circumstnaces that lead up to a persons death and didn't do anything at all and you were given the option of being able to stop the death occuring then if you didn't you would not be killing that person in an anarchist government or a government that stipulates that you needed to be the one to deliberatly cause the action to kill another being to be responsible.

I've already stated that you would be legally be held responsible for many of the situations that occur as thats the law in most western countrys..

But this debate has two ways to look at it if you may...

The legal option which would make you be held liable..
But if that option was taken out and you could get away with it or the law wouldn't prosocute you then you would't be responsible but rather you would end up being morally and ethically guilty.

The question is whether you could live with yourself.

If i come across a gang beating a woman and just stand by and watch them kill her and then the police come and they do not do anything to prosocute me then legally i have gotten off being an accessory and therefore also being held responsible for her death.

But morally and ethically i would start to feel guilty and would feel like i caused it if i'm a kind person.

If i'm a facts person like I am then i probably just live my life and i am never responsible for her death because morally and ethically i don't feel that i'm responsible.

[Wolfman Walt]

If a mother doesn't feed their child they are making a deliberate decision to act in a fashion which will kill the child and can be placed the blame yes..But this is a deliberate action of killing..

It's the same as walking away from a guy that's hanging out on a cliff and you do nothing. You're still handling the circumstances since you're doing nothing to help, you're making a decision to act in a fashion that will kill that guy. You're letting them die. You don't need to be deliberately responsible in order to kill someone, read what I wrote. Manslaughter is just another term for criminally negligent homicide inwhich there are two types - Deliberate and indeliberate. Being that one of the types is actually NAMED indeliberate, then yea. Most country's have laws

The problem is you're trying to deal with morals, which you can't do since everyones morals are different, you have to deal with something empirical if you ask me. The topic question is "Is letting someone die the same as killing" and it's a yeshish answer. Legally, you can be held responsible in most places for letting someone die. The question never specified if we ment morally or what not.

[VampyreLord]

You ahve a point Wolfman, but generally I would have to say that debates like this are usually about the moral aspect rather than the legal technicalities...

As far as I'm concerned, morally there is no difference. Letting someone die is just the lazy way of killing them that makes you seem more innocent...

[chiking1]

I don't think that letting one die is the same as killing them, because for example, if you don't give a begger money, and they starve to death, you'd be 'letting them die' too. That would be worst than abandonning your friend, because by giving him $5, it has an extremely low percentage to kill you, while your chances of surving the monster is 50.
So, VampyreLord from your point of view, wouldn't you feel guilty that you didn't donate to a the begger that you saw?

[dragoneyes001]

If you were to let someone die and you hadn't caused the act that killed them in anyway then you would not have killed them.
although in todays law it is morally and ethically wrong to let someone die as is the case for doctors and such they are not allowed legally to let someone die unless all that they could have done they tried to do including resucitation unless otherwise stated by the patient.
So in other words physically you would never be responsible for another persons death even if you are standing right next to them when they die. However legally you would probably be held responsible and therefore your would be deemed to have killed that person or attributed to killing them.
An example
I'm standing with my two friends hostage and one of the captors says to me kneel otherwise i'll shoot one of your friends. I wouldn't kneel and my friend would be killed.
In a court of law using my other friend as a witness i could be deemed responsible for causeing the death of my other friend and of killing another human being.
If you have the ability to act in an action which would stop another person being killed and you don't you become an accessory to the crime and therefore are also liable.
So in an anarchist state no you would not be held liable and depending on the worlds governmental laws in other country's you might not be held liable.
But in western countrys you can be charged as an accessory.
And shika i think you mean this
:p

in the case of the bold part you would not be found responsible for the death by any court. the qualification of being a hostage removes your responsibility for the crime. its called "by duress"
the hostage takers could put the gun in your hand and have you shoot and you would still be found innocent. this is actually quite a common issue because of war prisoners and has been to courts many times.

there are many levels of letting someone die.

like the OP has it to run on when the friend tripped may be personally guilty its not criminally guilty of any level of murder or manslaughter.

seeing someone drowning and having some means of aiding them and not doing so would be criminal neglect.

letting your friend try to reach a flower they want on a cliff and they fall to their death because you did not dissuade them from a foolish move is not criminal might be stupid but not criminal.

letting your friend drive drunk can become criminal negligence.

each case is taken individually but many examples of letting someone die will not be criminal neglect while many others are the ability to stop their demise without putting yourself at real risk of dieing will usually favor neglect on your part you will never be held criminally responsible if the risk to your own life to save the other equals that of the others risk of dieing.

[Avenger]

It all depends in the circumstances.If u see someone dying and don't help him u are clear by law but not clear by moral.If u hit someone with a car and let him die then yes u kill him.

[Sgt.Reaper]

Well I would say if you are "letting some die" by the defenition you put them in a situation where they will die, intentionally, but not physically takes ones life. You are guilty of his death. Same goes with refusing to help someone, with the exception that helping the other person puts you or anyone else in mortal danger.

[candyb3ar]

ya i agree with those whom say it depends on circumstances if you can then you should help, if not then dun worry cause you just may make it worse...x.x example some one is drowning, i sure the heck can't swim can i feel bad ya, but can i blame myself no...so meh, it all depends on variables

[toxxin]

Anyone in the protection profession (cop, medic, doc) you talk to will tell you never to put your own life at risk to save another. They will all say the same thing....don't play hero. So in the original scenario, with the "monster chasing you and your friend"...no it is not your responsibility to risk your own life to save another, and therefore not at all your fault that person dies.