Are We Responsible for Our Inactions?

[IndigoChild5559]

Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

Lack of action, when it creates harm, is every bit as immoral as action that creates harm.
For me as a Jew, I would refer you to this verse of the Torah:
Leviticus 19:16
...neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD.

For Christians:
James 4:17
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin"

Though I researched this, I have not been able to find any other religions that teach so clearly that lack of action which results in harm is morally wrong. If someone else knows of a place, please do butt in and share.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Lack of action, when it creates harm, is every bit as immoral as action that creates harm.
For me as a Jew, I would refer you to this verse of the Torah:
Leviticus 19:16
...neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD.

For Christians:
James 4:17
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin"

Though I researched this, I have not been able to find any other religions that teach so clearly that lack of action which results in harm is morally wrong. If someone else knows of a place, please do butt in and share.

“It is not right to leave undone the holy work which ought to be done. Such a surrender of action would be a delusion of darkness.

And he who abandons his duty because he has fear of pain, his reward is of rajas, impure, and in truth he has no reward.”

Baghavad Gita 18: 7-8 trans Juan Mascaro

 

[bobhikes]

I think everyone here knows about the Trolley Problem. (And those who don't can follow the link.)

I have a new variant that occurred to me during discussing the reasons of the US election.

In the original Trolley Problem, the solution I have preferred is that pulling the lever makes me responsible for the death of the one person I decided to kill, while I'm not responsible for the death of the five people, if I do nothing.
I.e. actions have moral value, inaction doesn't.

But what if there is no person on the other track? Or maybe something replaceable, like an empty car?
Do I have a moral obligation to act in that case?

So far for the theory, and I'd love to discuss it on that level alone, but those who like to engage may also have an opinion on the real world application. Let's assume you are a rational voter and you have a dilemma. There is a candidate who is flawed and one who is clearly the worst that could happen to your country. Do you have an obligation to vote for a bad candidate, when the other candidate has the stated goal and means to inflict pain and suffering on the country?

If you take a role of power by choice, then you have an obligation to act. If you fall into a position where you can act, then you still have the ability to choose not to act. The obligation to act comes from your chosen role and your chosen beliefs. The beliefs of others only have merit towards the action if your role is to guide the others in some way. In my opinion.

 

[Heyo]

If you take a role of power by choice, then you have an obligation to act. If you fall into a position where you can act, then you still have the ability to choose not to act. The obligation to act comes from your chosen role and your chosen beliefs. The beliefs of others only have merit towards the action if your role is to guide the others in some way. In my opinion.

An interesting thought, and it makes sense.
In Germany, you are obliged to help when you're a driver and you witness an accident. By choosing to drive a car, you take the responsibility to help (and the ability, as you have to take a first aid course for your licence, and you have to have a first aid kit in your car).