Act-Omission Distinction

Overview

The debate over the act-omission distinction is whether there is a moral distinction between choosing to take an action or choosing to not take an action. For instance, suppose Person $A$ sees that Person $B$ is about to fall off a cliff, could stop that from happening, but chooses not to. Across the ravine, Person $C$ pushes Person $D$ off the cliff. Is Person $A$ just as responsible for Person $B$'s death as Person $C$ is responsible for Person $D$'s death?

Those in favor of the act-omission distinction would say that $A$ is not responsible for $B$'s death because $A$ did not actively kill $B$. Those against the act-omission distinction would say that $A$ is just as responsible for $B$'s death because $A$ made the choice to not save $B$.

Debate Applications

Often, debaters running utilitarianism will justify there not being an act-omission distinction and say that only consequentialist frameworks can hold agents morally culpable in such a manner. It's worth noting that this argument doesn't actually justify util but more-so excludes frameworks that operate under the assumption of there being an act-omission distinction.

Common Arguments