You’ve probably heard about the act/omission distinction, about how people have different attitudes toward killing someone versus letting them die.
I’d like to break down that “letting die” category further into two sub-categories: letting someone die by failing to save them from a rights violation versus failing to save them from other causes.
An example of the first would be when you allow someone to be murdered. An example of the second would be when you fail to provide them with food or medical care.
Are those two kinds of letting die equally bad? What about if the entity doing the letting is the government?
Suppose the government rearranged its budget so that it stopped putting any money into anti-terrorism efforts and instead sought to eliminate malaria from the world. Is such a move justified as long as we prevent more malaria-related deaths than terrorism-related deaths?
I get the sense that most people think that letting a murder happen is worse than letting someone die of disease, but I don’t know if I share this view.