Activity

I am a bit surprised free will has not entered the discussion. Perhaps the primary topic of intention needs settling.

I am not well versed in this topic. However it seems to me that intentionality is the sine qua non of the judger. Otherwise rocks, perilously hanging branches and other naturally occurring inanimate risks are subject to our wrath. “That goddamn branch had the nerve to fall on me. Why i ought’r shoot ya in the nuts and kick you up the ass for doing that!” That might be a funny skit for SNL. Not sure anyone in their right mind could take it seriously. Oh well maybe Enco could…

However sometimes inaction is rightfully under the ambit of morality. Is it wrong to watch someone having a seizure and drowning in 18 inches of water without giving aid? Is it wrong when someone in authority has become aware of imminent danger to a stranger and remains silent?

In first year law school i recall two words that gave me difficulty in conceptualizing. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE. It is not indifference unless there is an awareness of something. It is not deliberate without that awareness. So why the modifier? Negligent indifference or insouciant indifference make more sense to me. In any event there is a tendency in american jurisprudence to scrutinize actors in their malfeasance as opposed to sitting on their ass and failing to act. That is not the case where the actor has a positive duty to act especially a fiduciary duty. Absent that sort of duty ya can get away with sitting on your ass watching somebody drown. I suspect that stance reflects the general perception of our moral compass.