Sins of Omission vs Commission

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know that if you give someone $1000, ten children in Africa do not die. You choose not to. They die. Sin of ommission.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not a sin at all unless they are your children or you have undertaken responsibility for them somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absolute hogwash. you can't not be held responsible for something because you deny responsibility for it. Or because you deny obligation. If the US and other countries continued to deny obligation to stop Hitler's onslaught of the Jews, what would happen then? It would have been ok to let them die? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems generally that so called, "sins of omission" presuppose an obligation to help others.

Why are we obligated to help others, especially those we do not know? Is it because their lives are special and they deserve to live? If so, isn't my life equally as special and isn't my life reason enough for me to live????

[/ QUOTE ]

Your life isn't endangered by helping them. I have to revise what I said: I don't actually believe in "sins" as it were, or divine right and wrong or whatever. As a Buddhist I am reminded of the Buddhist tale of the sick monk(Kucchivikara vattu): Now, at that time a certain monk was sick with dysentery. He lay fouled in his own urine and excrement. Then the Blessed One, on an inspection tour of the lodgings with Ven. Ananda as his attendant, went to that monk's dwelling and, on arrival, saw the monk lying fouled in his own urine and excrement. On seeing him, he went to the monk and said, "What is your sickness, monk?"

"I have dysentery, O Blessed One."
"But do you have an attendant?"
"No, O Blessed One."
"Then why don't the monks attend to you?"

"I don't do anything for the monks, lord, which is why they don't attend to me."

Then the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ananda: "Go fetch some water, Ananda. We will wash this monk."

"As you say, lord," Ven. Ananda replied, and he fetched some water. The Blessed One sprinkled water on the monk, and Ven. Ananda washed him off. Then - with the Blessed One taking the monk by the head, and Ven. Ananda taking him by the feet - they lifted him up and placed him on a bed.

Then the Blessed One, from this cause, because of this event, had the monks assembled and asked them: "Is there a sick monk in that dwelling over there?"

"Yes, O Blessed One, there is."
"And what is his sickness?"
"He has dysentery, O Blessed One."
"But does he have an attendant?"
"No, O Blessed One."
"Then why don't the monks attend to him?"

"He doesn't do anything for the monks, Lord, which is why they don't attend to him."

"Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

"If one's preceptor is present, the preceptor should tend to one as long as life lasts, and should stay until one's recovery. If one's teacher is present, the teacher should tend to one as long as life lasts, and should stay until one's recovery. "

I won't go into my opinions on this translation calling the buddha "o blessed one" and what not, in this thread, but I hope the point comes across.

As human beings who value our own lives and wellbeing, and see others in suffering, if we are able to, we should do what we can to help ease that suffering.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
It would have been ok to let them die? I think not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well since you think that, what have you done to stop the genocide in africa? If nothing, what have you done to atone for your sin?

[cielo]

[ QUOTE ]
As human beings who value our own lives and wellbeing, and see others in suffering, if we are able to, we should do what we can to help ease that suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the story 3 times and I hope that I am hearing it properly. Basically, we should recognize the suffering of others and help them when they are in need.


I do not doubt that many, if not most people feel compelled to help others who are in need. My question is simply why?

Why should we help others?

another way that I think about this question is...Do I have to justify my own life to others? That is to say, is my happiness not a justifiable (sp?) end of my actions? If it is not, Why?

cielo

Here's an easier example:

1) Smith has a wealthy nephew, Billy. If Billy dies, Smith will get Billy's millions. Smith decides to kill Billy. One night, as Billy is taking a bath, Smith walks in and drown Billy in the bathtub.

2) Jones also has a wealthy nephew, Bobby. The same scenerio takes place here except: just as Jones is about to walk in the bathroom, Bobby slips, hits his head and floats face-down in the tub unconscious. Jones just sits idly by as Bobby drowns.

Now, suppose you are an average person facing the two men tasked with comdemning them morally (not legally). Is there anything Jones can say to make him seem not as bad as Smith? Imagine Jones says: "Hey, I didn't actually drown him, I just stood by and let events happen as they happened. I'm not like Smith, who actually drowned his nephew."

I would bet that most people would not buy this argument. Jones killed Bobby by not doing something just as Smith killed Billy by doing something. The fact of whether or not one of the uncles physically did something the other didn't do seems to play no part in moral condemnation; both are equally to be condemned of murder.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
You know that if you give someone $1000, ten children in Africa do not die. You choose not to. They die. Sin of ommission.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often do you actually know this?

Really, the options for donating in Africa do not guarantee such a thing. And how long will you keep these children alive for?

This seems like a slanted question. I think you need to find a more reasonable example of a typical sin of omission to build a useful analogy.

[SheetWise]

Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.