Acts and Omissions in Moral Actions

Paper Summary:

The paper deals with the question of whether omitting to do something can be the same as actually performing an act. Is failing to give pensioners extra money for winter heating the same as shooting them dead personally, just because in both cases they die? The relation of motives to acts and omissions is discussed, as is the idea of an act being so inconvenient and difficult as to allow an omission. "Negative relevance" and the idea of "playing God" is also discussed.

From the Paper:

"In moral philosophy, there is a significant debate raging about the relationship between acts and omissions of an agent. Logic dictates that the action of an agent leads to a consequence, which in most cases can be held up to moral judgment. When omissions are considered, however, it is more appropriate to say that the behavior of the agent is what results in the consequences. For omitting to perform an action can be just as morally right or wrong as performing an action. This has led to some interesting and disturbing questions; in fact, it is testament to the power of reason that some cases in which anybody could be expected to have an instinctive moral judgment reaction in a certain direction actually turn out to be much less straightforward than they at first seem. Although the distinction between acts and omissions is by no means the only criterion for judging the morality of acts by, the discussion helps to further identify how moral judgments can be made. For example, the doctrine of double effect is connected to it, which also sheds some light on how motives and intentions work in influencing moral decisions."

More papers on Acts and Omissions in Moral Actions:

• Analytical Essay # 118493 : "Moral Actions in Literature"
• Analytical Essay # 136803 : "Duty and Inclination in the Moral Discourse of Immanuel Kant"
• Analytical Essay # 134359 : "Analysis of Acts and Philippians"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: