argumentclinic.net
log in
sign up
Ill Logic
3:18 a.m. nov 01, 2009

David and Anthony were discussing the question of whether inaction (in our case, on the part of a parent) can not only fail to prevent harm, but in fact cause it. Issues raised included, "is there a difference between causing harm and failing to prevent harm?" and "Does foreknowledge of harm being done implicate you in causing it?"

To quote Anthony's last post:

"I do not believe we have established a material difference between "how inaction can fail to stop or prevent harm" vs. "how can inaction *cause* harm." All we have explored is perhaps what constitutes an accident vs. manslaughter with the bus scenario. If you have any counter-argument that turns on the distinction, by all means, let's continue to explore it."

David, since you were considering the next response, I open the floor to you. Meanwhile, if I missed any important details in my summary, (either of you) please feel free to mention it.

David A. Harding
5:36 a.m. nov 01, 2009

My intended reply depended on me understanding Anthony's position, which he says I didn't. So let me ask Anthony a question: can you provide an example in which inaction causes harm? (But, I polietly request you replace my character with a hypothetical character, for example: Smith. Even in made-up examples, I don't want to read about how I caused my son to die.)

Anthony
10:42 a.m. nov 01, 2009

I assert that a person has prior knowledge and opportunity to prevent harm, regardless of how the harm comes about, their inaction causes harm.

Other factors may include period and occasion.

If NASA predicts that space junk will fall on my neighbor's house in three days, and I know my neighbor is a shut-in with no access to the outside world, I will cause the death of my neighbor by witholding the information I have.

David A. Harding
8:07 p.m. nov 01, 2009

Informing your neighbor would provide a service, but you are not required to provide anyone with a service. By most peoples' moral standards, not telling your neighbor would be immoral, but that makes inaction a vice (sloth), not a natural law crime.

Anthony
8:58 p.m. nov 01, 2009

Since I was initially ambivalent about the distinction, I am willing to concede defeat on this sub-debate.

Ill Logic
7:39 a.m. nov 02, 2009

Ok, I note the conclusion (unless there are objections to my wording):

* "Failure to prevent harm does not in itself cause harm"

Also, you likely used the word "defeat" casually, but for the record, as stated in my about page, this isn't really a competition. Generally, I see conceding a point as progress towards finding the best position between the two debaters.