Thread: Are we responsible to what happens in the rest of the world?

Let's say there is a war going on between two countries that has absolutely nothing to do with us, and has no chance of spreading into other countries or threatening the world in any way. We decide to do nothing and millions of people die, are we responsible because we stood idly by watching? Same type of question could be posed, in a different sense. If you see someone pointing a gun at someone and you decide not to get involved, and the person gets shot and dies. Are you responsible in anyway for that person's death?(By doing nothing, I mean physically nothing, you could still call the police)

Originally Posted by saveus

... If you see someone pointing a gun at someone and you decide not to get involved, and the person gets shot and dies. Are you responsible in anyway for that person's death?...

Not sure that's the best example. After all, there's not much opportunity for you to do something to prevent the shooting.

Let's change the scenario a bit... Let's say you come across the plans for the murder of a private citizen (someone you've never heard of) who lives in the next town, to take place in one week's time. You have the names, dates, times, places... everything. You have ample time to consider your actions in advance.

If you sit on the information, and tell no one, and the person is murdered, are you responsible in any way for the person's death? I'd say yes - absolutely. More so, than in the gunpoint scenario you depict in your post. Having the opportunity to review, examine, and consider one's options makes all the difference in the world.

Originally Posted by saveus

Let's say there is a war going on between two countries that has absolutely nothing to do with us, and has no chance of spreading into other countries or threatening the world in any way.

That's an impossibility. Refugees fleeing into neighboring countries is one example of the effects on non-conflict states.

Originally Posted by saveus

We decide to do nothing and millions of people die, are we responsible because we stood idly by watching?

It depends. If we have a treaty responsibility then we must become involved. Regardless, humanity and morality would require at least a cursory attempt to stop the bloodshed.

Originally Posted by Djinn

Not sure that's the best example. After all, there's not much opportunity for you to do something to prevent the shooting.

Let's change the scenario a bit... Let's say you come across the plans for the murder of a private citizen (someone you've never heard of) who lives in the next town, to take place in one week's time. You have the names, dates, times, places... everything. You have ample time to consider your actions in advance.

If you sit on the information, and tell no one, and the person is murdered, are you responsible in any way for the person's death? I'd say yes - absolutely. More so, than in the gunpoint scenario you depict in your post. Having the opportunity to review, examine, and consider one's options makes all the difference in the world.

You're analogy is flawed because what you're saying would be equivalent to a country preparing for war in a week and you know the exact time and place it will attack, but yet you do nothing to stop it. Are you responsible for the war?

Originally Posted by saveus

You're analogy is flawed because what you're saying would be equivalent to a country preparing for war in a week and you know the exact time and place it will attack, but yet you do nothing to stop it. Are you responsible for the war?

Wars don't begin and end in the split second it takes to fire a gun. Wars can be stopped once begun. A shooting cannot be stopped once the trigger has been pulled.

Originally Posted by Djinn

Wars don't begin and end in the split second it takes to fire a gun. Wars can be stopped once begun. A shooting cannot be stopped once the trigger has been pulled.

Nope, if you kill someone important in a war, lit won't be stopped right away just like a shooting. Remember the old saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Originally Posted by saveus

Nope, if you kill someone important in a war, lit won't be stopped right away just like a shooting. Remember the old saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

It can be argued that the U.S. hastened the end of World War II through the decisions to drop nuclear weapons on Japan.

Originally Posted by Djinn

It can be argued that the U.S. hastened the end of World War II through the decisions to drop nuclear weapons on Japan.

It can also be argued that the bomb saved more lives in total than it actually killed, sort of like the lesser of two evils.

We aren't responsible no. Should we help out another country that is in need and suffering due to war, yes, sometimes I think we should consider it. It should really be up to our military on both an economic and tactical level. When the objective doesn't involve people but 'special interests' then no, its not our responsibility but often we think it is.

We should obviously try to talk to them to try and create peace. Also, if one of the countries is the clear aggressor then I would be fine with helping one of the nations if we can do it easily.

But wars are never that clear cut, and normally wars are harder to win then a country thinks.

But overall I support the intervention choice.