Ommission/Commission ...submission

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Sins of omission vs sins of comission - that would be an interesting topic. very different imo.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

We are always committing an act. All acts have known and unknown consequences. We can only weigh the known ( we may be able to allow for some unknowns), but we're not able to acheive a nul-act state.

I can define an act as "walking toward the barn" or "walking away from the house" but all known consequences of that act do not depend on my name for it and I can't claim "but I was walking toward the barn" as an exemption from it's known consequences.

Iow, what the H is a 'sin of ommission'?

[John21]

damsel tied to train track; you ride up on horse; see approaching train; don't untie her; she dies.

You didn't commit a moral sin, you simply "ommitted" preventing one from happening

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
damsel tied to train track; you ride up on horse; see approaching train; don't untie her; she dies.

You didn't commit a moral sin, you simply "ommitted" preventing one from happening

[/ QUOTE ]

Each act has a list of 'state of the universe once I've done it' attached. We don't get to pick and choose which ones we'll count as 'ones I caused'. We can weigh them and decide our course of action but outcomes that would be knowingly different by us taking a different action are 'outcomes of that action'... call it what we want.

[guesswest]

I already mentioned in other threads today that I don't think these two things are tangibly different. I feel like the main reason people make this distinction is to justify a desired lifestyle and/or self-image. Either because they don't want to soil their virtue/conscience by having to engage in acts that would in isolation be morally negative, and which they could potentially evaluate wrong (see Nudnicks thread etc.); or conversely because they don't want to view some ethically positive acts as morally mandated, such as donating money to charity for example. I can't see how omission carries a lesser moral weight where it's every bit as much a moral decision.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I already mentioned in other threads today I don't think these two things are tangibly different. I feel like the main reason people make this distinction is to self-justify a desired lifestyle. Either because they don't want to soil their virtue/conscience by having to engage in acts that would in isolation be morally negative, and which they could get wrong (see Nudnicks thread etc.); or conversely because they don't want to view some ethically positive acts as morally mandated, such as donating money to charity for example. I can't see how ommission carries a lesser moral weight where it's every bit as much a moral decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right on some of the reasons for people to differentiate, but I just can't find a way to tell one from the other.
Act A - here are it's known outcomes.
Act B - here are it's known outcomes.

There is no act which we can say -
Act C - "here are it's unknown outcomes"
or some such, which would seem to be what it would take to be a 'sin of ommission'.

Other than that it just seems like " oh, I don't count those outcomes of my action".

Fancier versions of - I step on his throat to reach a tall shelf, "hey, I was merely reaching for a book".

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sins of omission vs sins of comission - that would be an interesting topic. very different imo.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

We are always committing an act. All acts have known and unknown consequences. We can only weigh the known ( we may be able to allow for some unknowns), but we're not able to acheive a nul-act state.

I can define an act as "walking toward the barn" or "walking away from the house" but all known consequences of that act do not depend on my name for it and I can't claim "but I was walking toward the barn" as an exemption from it's known consequences.

Iow, what the H is a 'sin of ommission'?

[/ QUOTE ]
Killing for £10 is a sin of comission
not giving £10 to prevent someone being killed is a sin of omission.

That's the sort of thing I mean anyway.

chez

[madnak]

A moral position can only be irrational if morality is rational in the first place. I don't think that's true at all.

Unless there's an inconsistency in a moral system, it's beyond theoretical criticism. Even if someone says "it's wrong to kill people, unless your name is John, in which case it's never wrong to kill people" that's perfectly reasonable so long as he remains consistent. The ultimate basis for morality is essentially arbitrary.

You seem to be assuming some kind of objective basis for morality, according to which you're indicting those who make these distinctions. But that's absurd. Of course there's no objective moral justification for a distinction between sins of omission and of comission, but there's no objective moral justification for believing that saving a life is better than destroying a life. The common perception that murder is "bad" and saving lives is "good" has no objective basis at all.

In other words, your argument here is an argument against moral relativism, not against any sort of specific moral distinction.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing for £10 is a sin of comission
not giving £10 to prevent someone being killed is a sin of omission.

That's the sort of thing I mean anyway.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry,I must be exceptionally thick today.
How about ..
1)"take this $10 or I'll kill the girl."
2)"Don't give me $10 and I'll let her live."

Sure, we have to weigh in the probability that the result will actually occur, but in your or my examples I don't see how they differ from -

Act A - here are it's 'known' consequences.

Is it some 'hands-on' aspect I'm missing. The getaway driver isn't really a bankrobber sort of thing?

[guesswest]

It's not an argument against relativism at all. On a point of fact I'm not sure you're right to claim morality isn't rational, but in any event it doesn't matter here, it was only internal inconsistency I was attacking.

My suggestion is that people from this school of thought will view an action as morally sound or not based on a view of how they want the world to be. For example 'I won't kill because I don't want to see people killed.' But then faced with a situation where they have to choose to kill either by omission or commission, such as the button example earlier, they will give omission an exemption from their own moral analysis in order to maintain the dictate that they don't kill. Although the point of the dictate in the first place is that people getting killed is bad thing, and omission in this instance causes more of said bad thing.

I'm certainly not arguing that any such dictates exist in nature.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
...but there's no objective moral justification for believing that saving a life is better than destroying a life. The common perception that murder is "bad" and saving lives is "good" has no objective basis at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's accept your final claim. How does which particular act we choose that saves or doesn't save a life matter in this 'ommission/commission' confusion? How is choosing to hold his head under different than not lifting the rock off?
Act A - your hands on his neck- he drowns.
Act B - your hands jingling your change - he drowns.
whether we consider it good or bad.

A and B seem both acts we choose with known outcomes ... is there a meaningful difference?