Simpler Ommission vs Commision Scenario

[David Sklansky]

I'm admitting ahead of time that my goal with these questions is to try to show logically that people are just rationalizing when they make huge distinctions between sins of omimssion and sins of commission. Meaning that that since sins of ommission are commonplace for almost everybody, we are all sinners who have no right to be saved unless we accept Jesus's forgiveness. Er, rather I mean we are all advanced animals who deep down are simply trying to maximize our personal pleasure and satisfaction even if we sometimes derive it from pretending to be "moral."

Take this scenario. A private pilot at a small unlit airport is waiting for you to show up before dusk with your $1000 rental fee to deliver some perishable goods that will earn you $700 profit after the delivery. But he, nor anyone else, can take off after 8PM. You said you would be there by 7:55 at the latest, but probably sooner At 7:52, a distraught man clutching $600 asks the pilot to fly him to his son because he has the medicine that will save his life. But time is of the essence. The pilot doesn't care about his son but even a $600 fee is worth it to him so he agrees, since it looks like you won't make it on time.

At 7:54 you show up as the plane is taxiing away. The pilot stops, you wave your $1000 and demand your plane. The father screams out the situation to you. You tell him you are sorry but it is not your problem. Especially given the $700 diffence in your pocket. The pilot says he must ask the father to leave the plane so he can ferry you. The father now shoots you in the leg so you must abandon your plans and go to the hoispital. The pilot takes off with the father.

What if any sins were committed here? Are they sins of ommission or commission?

[RJT]

Sins of commission and omission are important concepts. There are of course differences (one is not necessarily worse than the other - depends on the sin itself is my answer). Commissions are tangibles in a sense, while omissions are intangibles.

What if I was planning on using my $700 profit along with all the $15 that I saved ( instead of pushing the button for that kid in Africa) to send my kid to grad school. My kid because of his education finds the cure to kill the HIV virus. Or I don’t make the $700 and my kid never gets educated and does not cure AIDS.

We can’t all be Mother Theresa. We each should find our niche and do what we do best with our time, treasure and talents.

It is all about opportunity cost.

[carlo]

You should start a Legal Forum. This type of question fits perfectly in with the legal mind set which is earth-bound and along with our political system is an extension of Rome.

carlo

[purnell]

I pretty much see the hypothesis as self-evident, so I don't buy the concept of "sin". So this boils down to a legal discussion for me too. What's this about Rome?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
What's this about Rome?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is debateable but I understand our western legal and political systems to be the continuation of Rome. Of importance here is the concept of "citizen" which was non existant before this was codified into Roman Law. In effect, our consideration of individual rights can be related to Rome.

carlo

[theweatherman]

umm, obvioiusly?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm admitting ahead of time that my goal with these questions is to try to show logically that people are just rationalizing when they make huge distinctions between sins of omimssion and sins of commission. Meaning that that since sins of ommission are commonplace for almost everybody, we are all sinners who have no right to be saved unless we accept Jesus's forgiveness. Er, rather I mean we are all advanced animals who deep down are simply trying to maximize our personal pleasure and satisfaction even if we sometimes derive it from pretending to be "moral."

Take this scenario. A private pilot at a small unlit airport is waiting for you to show up before dusk with your $1000 rental fee to deliver some perishable goods that will earn you $700 profit after the delivery. But he, nor anyone else, can take off after 8PM. You said you would be there by 7:55 at the latest, but probably sooner At 7:52, a distraught man clutching $600 asks the pilot to fly him to his son because he has the medicine that will save his life. But time is of the essence. The pilot doesn't care about his son but even a $600 fee is worth it to him so he agrees, since it looks like you won't make it on time.

At 7:54 you show up as the plane is taxiing away. The pilot stops, you wave your $1000 and demand your plane. The father screams out the situation to you. You tell him you are sorry but it is not your problem. Especially given the $700 diffence in your pocket. The pilot says he must ask the father to leave the plane so he can ferry you. The father now shoots you in the leg so you must abandon your plans and go to the hoispital. The pilot takes off with the father.

What if any sins were committed here? Are they sins of ommission or commission?

[/ QUOTE ]This one may be a bit more difficult because it may have a qualifying emergency.

The pilot in breaking his mutual agreement with you was unethical, unless this Scenario qualifies as a special emergency?
The pilot then again was unethical in breaking his agreement with the father, if the father’s situation does not qualify as a special emergency.
The father was then unethical in initiating force by shooting the pilot. But frankly in situations like this ethics are the last things on the fathers mind.

However, there are certain emergencies which may ethically require the pilot to help the father. Does this scenario qualify? Extraordinary circumstances may require, if one wishes to act ethically, certain actions. The ailment of the son must not be because of his own actions, and must be an extra-ordinary situation. The pilot must not be endangering his life in anyway. The one act of help is sufficient.

It is not to say that one should roam around in search of qualifying emergencies to help out to be ethical. It is just that if you can save a man from drowning without risking your own life, ethically you should save him. These emergencies are additional aspects of absolute morality, not a refutation of it.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I pretty much see the hypothesis as self-evident, so I don't buy the concept of "sin". So this boils down to a legal discussion for me too. What's this about Rome?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. That's my answer to. No God so no sins committed of either sort.

[Duke]

The only one I can't fault is the father. The pilot shouldn't have stopped, and after hearing what was happening the guy with $1k shouldn't have been a piece of [censored].

~D