Two weeks ago a man was shot to death trying to help a woman being beaten in the middle of a parking lot outside a KMart (?). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/11/28/a-good-samaritan-helped-a-woman-who-was-being-beaten-in-a-parking-lot-now-hes-dead/?utm_term=.218a807346ff

'To thine own self be true'. The only thing Polonius said that I liked.

Seems like a lot of words to maybe just say that you'd only attribute moral goodness to the neighbor on the right in this situation. I'm not sure if you're at all passing judgment on the neighbor on the left or whether you're just seeing them as morally neutral.

And maybe you're wanting to suggest the normative of moral intervention, but even with all of those words, you never do this very explicitly.

@Terrapin Station, part of the argument is that inaction is no excuse, at least not morally.
The two quotes, and the trolley problem of old, allude to that as well.
Granted, moral actions are not always decidable (the trolley problem again), yet, this scenario seems fairly straightforward.
The opening post is a different angle on the problem of evil (capable, knowing, willing).

Well, if you are passing moral judgment on inaction, I don't personally agree with that. My view there isn't so popular--a lot of people would say that there's something morally negative to inaction when one feels that something is morally wrong, one is aware of a situation occurring, and one is capable of acting. I see inaction rather as morally neutral.

What if the "victim" deserved it ? I'm thinking almost all people have some sort of equation by which they deem a violent reaction is indeed warranted. Courts cops military vigilantes , and wronged husbands to name a few. I even think I could press your buttons enough to get a reaction. In that case , the person who acted , thwarted justice by at least someones standards.
Though our courts deem one legally responsible to indeed take action in certain circumstances , Im thinking that Terrapin is actually more correct from a moral code standpoint.. Not that I really expect him to take that road any more than anyone else.
I'm thinking you're a bit too convinced about what the correct actions are, to have the scenario be anything more than an exhibition that your opinions fit with many peoples.,, but dont feel bad ,I see it that Burke and Mill are both laboring under some mistaken concepts.

I conclude that the simplest coherent belief is that no others, capable and knowing, exist, that are as good as the neighbor on the right (or otherwise benevolent/loving). — jorndoe

One of the biggest issues people tend to have with consequentialist ethics is that they apparently ask too much of us. This is false. Consequentialist ethics, in fact, ask only for what we are able to do.

The problem isn't that we are given much too responsibility, but rather an unequal amount of responsibility is placed on those who subscribe to consequentialist ethics. Instead of the entire world attempting to eradicate hunger, for example, we have only certain countries and organizations doing so. Way too much responsibility is placed on the shoulders of these groups, and it actually affects their overall productivity.

Those vanguards who pave the way for future productivity in welfare will always have an unequal burden placed upon their shoulders, at least until everyone else gets off their asses and starts helping as well. Those who stand idly by and are legitimately capable of helping out are not simply bystanders but are actively contributing to the overall poor state of the world (the bystander effect).

Then go do it. Your ethics , your obligations , your actions.
See how that doesn't intrude on anyone else's rights or beliefs?
See how nobody tries to interfere ?

@Terrapin Station, you might be able to argue that inaction is entirely excusable, if you will.
That said, do you disagree that the neighbor on the right did better than others...?
I mean, would you really just look the other way, "just another day at the farm"...?

@Stosh, sure, they may hav'a had it comin'. :)
Uncomfortably close to victim blaming though.
The scenario wasn't really intended as one of those.
(Presumably you're not claiming the scenario is unrealistic, entirely hypothetical, "never happened"?)



It's a fairly basic (relative) comparison among capable and knowing neighbors, and what we think "doing the right thing"™ is (as a default).
Or what some of us think at least.

Stosh, sure, they may hav'a had it comin'. :)
Uncomfortably close to victim blaming though.
The scenario wasn't really intended as one of those.
(Presumably you're not claiming the scenario is unrealistic, entirely hypothetical, "never happened"?)
It's a fairly basic (relative) comparison among capable and knowing neighbors, and what we think "doing the right thing"™ is (as a default).
Or what some of us think at least. — jorndoe

Notice that I have "victim" in quotation marks, that's to alert that I think, that the writer has predetermined who is right and wrong. Its not a neutral stance , nor should one presume they always know whats 'right'.
Certainly people think they know what the "right" thing is. But Rightness is a judgement , an opinion.
Yeah it does seem to skirt blaming a victim , that's why I spelled out the examples of where victim-hood is easily seen to be a matter of perspective.
All it actually says is , a 'person harms another person ...by exercising free will , or something else'.

Why the subjective nature of rightness is important here is that the Op has determined who is right and who is wrong , and has declared the person on the right as morally justified righter of wrongs, and the guy on the left as contemptible. End of story ,
Though there are times when you might want people to do as you determine is right,, I don't think you can correctly hold people responsible for things they didn't do, because the things they didn't do are imaginary. If you did there'd be no assertive proof that can be challenged in court ,,, there's no way to defend against imaginary accusations, you cant prove intent , or motive , or means.
I'm thinking generally speaking ,, If a person did a deed ,later deemed to have been illegal ,THEY are the guilty party, not all of society or bystanders ,, and thats just the standard this society has because we collectively don't want to take responsibility for what everyone else is choosing to do.

What does Morpheus have to do with it :)

you might be able to argue that inaction is entirely excusable, if you will.
That said, do you disagree that the neighbor on the right did better than others...?
I mean, would you really just look the other way, "just another day at the farm"...? — jorndoe

Yeah, I'd like that the one neighbor helped, I just don't see it as morally negative that the other neighbor didn't.

@Stosh, oddly enough, it's almost as if you agree with the assessment in the opening post...? :)
Call it a thought experiment (with a stacked deck), call it an event that happened in Texas, USA, 2015 (real life), doesn't really matter (when in doubt apply charity).
Sure, morals are subjective in part or whole, yet morals are hardly arbitrary, ad hoc opinion, mere whims of the moment, random, or discretionary.
Among actors in the scenario, it seems the neighbor on the right did best; anything to the contrary just re-stacks the deck, while still deferring to moral sentiments (they had it comin').
Morpheus was just a bit surprised, or rather I was. :D

Anyway, the opening post is a rendition of the problem of evil (sort of).
Capable, knowing, willing.
A hypothetical neighbor "above", was less benevolent than the neighbor on the right, yet could have intervened prior, and hence leaves something to be desired, as it were, or did not exist (absent actor).

I conclude that the simplest coherent belief is that no others, capable and knowing, exist, that are as good as the neighbor on the right (or otherwise benevolent/loving). — jorndoe

Are you trying to argue that therefore no omniscient, powerful God exists? That is easily countered by the 'God works in mysterious ways' defence, which basically says that there is additional information that explains the lack of action, which we do not know, and possibly couldn't even understand if we were told it.

Now that defence doesn't satisfy me, so I don't believe in such a God, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't satisfy you either. But if somebody wants to believe in such a God and avail themselves of that defence, there is no logical way to attack it.

I reject the defence simply because it's arbitrary, aesthetically displeasing and 'feels' wrong. If God is so very mysterious that he can stand by and let the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami happen, then I see no point in trying to believe in, communicate with, or understand such a God at all. But if somebody else does, good luck to them.

Sample scenario — jorndoe

I don't want to be guilt-tripped into doing "good" that I might greatly regret, or might be the last thing I ever do.

Am I capable of anything about the bad things I witness?
If I am capable, what are the actions that might take?
If there are options, how do I decide which action to take?]
Which actions will be effective, yet will not place me in the way of unmanageable harm?
Are there likely delayed consequences of taking effective action which does not cause immediate harm to me?

We can process these considerations pretty quickly.

Fist fight between two large men? Knife fight? Gun fight? = leave it alone. I'm not big enough, strong enough, don't know what the fight is about, don't know how drunk the two guys are, don't want to get punched out by interfering.

Neighbor's house being robbed. = call the police, observe, do not interfere.

Children being beaten. = call the police, verbally interfere, test the situation as to physical intervention (who's doing the beating? possibly armed? possibly crazy? likelihood of encountering adult or child later?)

Person injured in car accident, no one else around. Call the police and or ambulance, verbally inquire about condition, do not physically intervene (possibility of causing more injury); provide first aid if possible (if one has materials needed--at least apply tourniquet to bleeding limb); watch for fire potential, in which case, intervene if possible. (My understanding is that in some states there is a duty to respond and be free of liability).

Someone being robbed: call police, do not intervene unless one can deliver unquestionably superior force (in other words, don't start a defense one can't finish). Observe.

I don't know whether you would call these responses adequate, but like I said, I don't plan on rushing in and playing hero for a day and ending up getting beaten to a pulp or dead.

I see inaction rather as morally neutral.

How do you define "inaction"? For example would "not moving your body" qualify as inaction? If you decide to be "inactive" while your car is moving stright towards a pedestrian in front of you so that you will not move your feet to activate the brake (that would mean to "act") would your decision/behaviour be "morally neutral"?

It's probably important to keep in mind the context of a discussion for something like this. (Which is meant as sarcastic understatement.)

We're talking about someone seeing something they consider morally wrong--for example, observing an assault--but not acting to intervene even though they are capable of it. No?

Yes in the specific case of the original post there is an element that weakens the moral responsibility of the "inactive" neighbour: since there is an offender to be stopped there is a risk involved in the intervention that can be a moral justification.

My point was that if you go deeply inside the meaning of the concepts you find that there is no real meaningful distinction between "action" and "inaction" so it would probably be better just to speak about "behaviour", "risks" and "consequences".

My point was that if you go deeply inside the meaning of the concepts — Babbeus

I don't even know what that would amount to. But we probably have very different views on what meanings and concepts are (a fortiori because my views are not really typical views in a philosophical context).

At any rate, all I was talking about was person A observing person B engaging in behavior A considers morally wrong, where B is victimizing person C (in A's opinion) and where A opts to not intervene even though A would be capable of intervening. A is morally neutral in my view.

"Opting not to intervene" in situations like that is what I was referring with "inaction."

Maybe I do agree, to a degree, with the opening post, umm its certainly more my style to act rather than leave someone to nasty fate. Like BitterCrank said, I don't like people shoving me at what they think I should do. IMO Behavior and sentiments, arising from the human condition ,, without a coded set of morals probably leads more often to the most sociable stance , or at least a very reasonable flexible stance,, comparatively speaking ,, to people doing things because they are being compelled by rigid code. Your stance obligates everyone to always act, always judge.

I've come across people who are very confused by , or disagreeing with, the idea that amoral behavior doesn't mean immoral.Practically speaking ,, It just means that one is acting out of their own genuine impulses , not necessarily the dictates of a larger society. I don't know anyone at all who actually 'turns the other cheek' or really thinks actual pacifism is desirable. I think we are told that we are supposed to judge everybody and all situations , decide someone as wrong , someone else as right , and then step in to play a hero with force included. But I think its recognizable to everyone that ..
Not stepping in , you haven't been enemy to anyone. Stepping in , now you're involved in sht that doesn't concern you.

If you're Christian,,( I'm not)
Does God step in and force your hand to do everything his way ? or is he sitting up in the clouds keeping his hands off so that man can exercise free will.. and the Devil , does he just leave everyone alone ? or does he interfere to try to sway people.

What does Morpheus have to be surprised about :) that a self righteous goody-two shoes opinion was challenged ? ;)

Right, @andrewk, the greater good defense.

Say, like, the during the time the neighbor on the left walks away, and the neighbor on the right intervenes, the victim learned an important lesson, so that they later save a refugee family, whose youngest child yet later takes political office for the good of many more, ... Or something else, as long as an unknown greater good remains a coherent possibility (while ignoring an unknown greater bad).

The greater good defense is an appeal to ignorance, though, but it does show that the original problem does not refute omnipotence + omniscience + omnibenevolence together on a purely deductive basis.

I was going for the simplest coherent belief, compatible with our own moral actions.

I was going for the simplest coherent belief, compatible with our own moral actions. — jorndoe

What is this pre-occupation I keep sensing with simplest coherent belief ?

I for one agree, @Bitter Crank, a specific, practical course of action is situation dependent.
I also agree with @Stosh, to some extent, that you can argue for a laissez-faire "none of my business" sentiment.
If, say, a bunch of bikers are beating up a member of the rivals, then I'm less concerned, than a babysitter beating up the baby they're sitting.
But plain, everyday moral actions are relevant here.
I could go by evidence, if you prefer; wasn't intending to presumptuously impose my own moral standards.

I could go by evidence, if you prefer; wasn't intending to presumptuously impose my own moral standards. — jorndoe

Congratulations, you just freed Jorndoe from philosophical self contempt about not taking action about everything wrong in the world. :) That should be a great weight off your shoulders, (it was unfair to you to begin with.)

Reminds me about Wahlberg claiming to have had like a hundred dreams about stopping 9/11, being on the plane and killing all the terrorists.

There are lots of people unafraid of confrontation, even thirsty for it. They're likely to be the types that look to be aggressively abusing others to the neighbors (they are of course doling out justice in their own minds).

Fewer confrontation hungry, or self-righteous people would probably lead to fewer heroes and villains in this scenario. More confrontation averse, gentle folk then fewer heroes, as well as villains.

I'm not going to suggest that not intervening is superior, but just that both have their draw backs and benefits.

moral actions are not always decidable (the trolley problem again)

Apropos, here's MIT's Moral Machine: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

It is ironic to suggest someone should always do the 'right' thing, when the 'right' action often is the one with the worse consequences.

Where I live a man tried to help a woman being harassed by her boyfriend. Unfortunately both the man harassing the woman and the woman he was trying to help where know drug dealers and instead of helping her he got shot dead.

http://fox61.com/2016/12/12/groton-good-samaritan-shot-dead-in-parking-lot-armed-and-dangerous-suspect-on-the-loose/

It is ironic that I actually lived in the neighborhood, but even when I lived there (when it was considered part of the projects) most people knew not to get involved in matters that didn't really concern them. As the old saying goes 'no good dead goes unpunished'. :(