The ethics of inaction in the philosophy profession posted on may 18, 2015 by justin caouette earlier this year (in february) i was fortunate enough to present some of my work in st louis at the central meeting of the apa. Action versus inaction: an ethical issue by dr bob woody in my early years, i was impressed with the views of frederick c thorne, md, phd, and perry london, phd despite the differences between these two fellows, they shared, i believe, a common message, namely: professionalism requires action. Therefore, the ethical idea of responsibility for both action and inaction is an idea that still needs advocates throughout the world the social contract that exists between man and his government also extends to man and his fellow man.
What people generally call inaction in this context really does consist of an action: standing still and watching the train hit the five people you have the choice to perform one of two actions: either push the fat man or stand still one action results in one death while the other action results in five deaths. Action vs inaction – are they morally equivalent 03 december categories: personal development today i read about a hypothetical scenario that i’m struggling with, and not exactly sure yet how i feel about it. Every time i see an interview on tv or on the radio with someone giving an argument for or against some policy or course of action taken by the state (or an individual) i can’t help but think that philosophers should be in on this.
Inaction may portend to be unethical conduct in daily professional services, psychologists make potentially life-altering decisions all clinical judgments and actions must, of course, be done in accord with the laws, administrative regulations, and professional standards and ethics that pertain to psychologists. My housemate disagreed saying that he believed that there is no moral difference between choosing inaction and actually choosing to kill these five people oneself he argued that there was no real 'inaction' in this situation, that there are simply two choices - to pull the switch or not to pull the switch, each of which constitutes a decision which brings about the deaths of one or more people. Ethics inaction: lessons for project leaders from the flint water crisis april 11, 2016 wendy hirsch for the past few months, i’ve been actively following the news about flint, michigan, where poor decisions, wrong action and inaction resulted in lead-contaminated water being poured into people’s homes for months before corrective action was taken. Let’s reflect on this quote that brings our learning toward an essential question: when other people are mistreated, what does it have to do with me.
Peter singer’s specific principle denotes the ability to choose between action and inaction automatically confers upon the decider the weight of their choice once you are aware that you have a choice to make, you also should be aware that the choice rightly bears consequences. From: raghottama dasa question: how to understand “action in inaction and inaction in action” as mentioned in gita 517 please explain with some examples (transcription done by rupak panigrahy) answer: this particular verse is one of the most puzzling verses in the bhagavad gita its bhagavat gita 418 karmany akarma yah pasyed akarmani ca karma yah sa buddhiman manusyesu sa yuktah.
In this situation, leaning towards a deontological perspective, i don't think that there is a moral way to positively influence the course of events, and so i argued that inaction is the appropriate choice, rather than personally becoming responsible for a person's death, who would not otherwise have died. Two common delusions are to assume that action is the way–that inaction must be avoided–and that inaction is the way and action is to be avoided these two delusions dominate just about everybody in india the action/inaction controversy continues, to absolutely no conclusion or practical value. Action or inaction and the ethics of choice one of peter singer’s four main principles of ethics is that we are just as responsible for our inactions as we are for our actions this means that we as human beings have an ethical obligation to act if we witness something wrong happening.
Sometimes the harm occurs because the agent did not perform some action: because she did not press a switch or did not push a rock we will refer to this as the action/inaction distinction there do appear to be cases where the action/inaction distinction and the doing/allowing distinction come apart. And that, not the distinction between action and inaction or the moral weighting of one life against five, is the real reason why many people fight against accepting the obviously correct answer.
For the past few months, i’ve been actively following the news about flint, michigan, where poor decisions, wrong action and inaction resulted in lead-contaminated water being poured into people’s homes for months before corrective action was taken. Counterfactual accounts may be used to support the claim that doing harm is worse than allowing harm on the grounds that, on such accounts, allowing harm is simply a matter of not interfering or letting nature take its course. In essence, i decided that action would be easier to defend than inaction, even if, in my view, positive action was not in the patient’s best interests the factors that swayed this decision were the relatives’ obvious desire that their “successfully” treated brother “get better”, and the reflex that is trained into doctors to do something when presented with a patient on the verge of death.