A surreal illustration of moral dilemmas represented by chess pieces, with a cityscape backdrop.

The Ethics of Inaction: Understanding Omissions and Moral Responsibility

Author's portrait.
Mira Elwood in Mind & Education August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Explore the complex world of act-omission doctrine and its impact on our moral judgments. Discover how omissions, allowings, and moral obligations intertwine in ethical decision-making."


In the sphere of ethics, the distinction between acts and omissions carries significant weight. Often, it's argued that actively causing harm is morally harder to justify than allowing harm to occur through inaction. This principle, known as the act-omission doctrine, suggests that our moral evaluations differ depending on whether we actively intervene or passively allow events to unfold.

Consider a scenario where you could prevent a negative outcome but choose not to act. In such cases, are you merely allowing the event to happen, or are you, in some way, responsible for its occurrence? This question brings us to the core of the debate surrounding omissions and their ethical implications. Some philosophers argue that allowing something to happen is inherently different from actively causing it, while others believe that omissions can be just as morally significant as actions.

Understanding the nuances of omissions requires careful examination. Before delving deeper, let’s define what constitutes an omission and how it relates to concepts like allowing and doing. By clarifying these terms, we can better navigate the complex moral landscape of inaction and its consequences.

The Nuances of Omissions and Allowings

A surreal illustration of moral dilemmas represented by chess pieces, with a cityscape backdrop.

The relationship between omissions and allowings is intricately linked to whether we can draw morally neutral distinctions between acting, omitting, doing, and allowing. Judith Thomson, for instance, argues that the difference between killing and letting die isn't entirely nonmoral. She suggests that letting a patient die necessitates the agent having a liberty-right to engage in the behavior (action or inaction) that leads to the patient's death. If this holds true, a mother who omits feeding her baby, resulting in its death, is considered to have killed her baby rather than merely letting it die, as she typically doesn't have the liberty to withhold sustenance.

This perspective highlights how moral obligations and rights influence our perception of omissions. When an action is deemed morally permissible due to a liberty-right, it falls into a different ethical category than an omission that violates a duty. Jeff McMahan challenges accounts that blur the lines between killing and letting die in a nonmoral way. His analysis of letting die hinges on whether a person requires aid for survival and dies because the agent fails to provide it, without the agent being causally responsible for the person's initial need.

  • Moral neutrality in distinguishing acts, omissions, doings, and allowings.
  • Thomson's view on killing versus letting die is not wholly nonmoral.
  • McMahan's analysis of letting die depends on aid dependency and agent's responsibility.
  • Kamm’s perspective on agent terminating and allowing a cause of death.
Frances Kamm offers a similar perspective, suggesting that if an agent terminates aid, allowing a potential cause of death to take effect, it constitutes letting die, especially if the agent was providing the aid themselves. These accounts imply that you can let someone die not merely by omitting action but by actively contributing to the circumstances leading to death. For example, disconnecting someone from life support could be considered letting them die, even though it involves a deliberate act.

Navigating the Complexities of Moral Choice

The exploration of omissions reveals the intricate nature of moral decision-making. By understanding the nuances of acts, omissions, allowings, and doings, we can better assess our responsibilities and the consequences of our choices. Whether in personal relationships, professional settings, or societal contexts, the ethics of inaction plays a crucial role in shaping our moral landscape. As we continue to grapple with these complex issues, let us strive for greater awareness, empathy, and a commitment to ethical conduct in all aspects of life.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee437.pub2, Alternate LINK

Title: Omissions

Journal: International Encyclopedia of Ethics

Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Authors: Ingmar Persson

Published: 2018-06-30

Everything You Need To Know

1

What is the central idea behind the act-omission doctrine, and how does it influence our moral judgments?

The act-omission doctrine differentiates moral evaluations based on whether we actively cause harm versus passively allowing it. It suggests that actively causing harm is generally considered more difficult to justify morally than allowing harm through inaction. However, the moral significance of omissions is debated, with some arguing they can be as morally significant as actions.

2

According to Judith Thomson, how does the concept of 'liberty-right' affect our understanding of 'letting die' versus 'killing'?

Judith Thomson argues that the distinction between killing and letting die isn't entirely nonmoral. She posits that letting someone die implies the agent has a liberty-right to engage in the behavior that leads to the person's death. If an agent does not have a liberty-right, for example, a mother withholding sustenance from her baby, resulting in death, is considered to have killed the baby rather than letting the baby die.

3

How does Jeff McMahan's analysis of 'letting die' depend on the concept of aid dependency and the agent's responsibility?

Jeff McMahan analyzes letting die based on whether a person depends on aid for survival and dies because the agent fails to provide it, without the agent being causally responsible for the person's initial need. This perspective challenges accounts that attempt to nonmorally equate killing and letting die. It highlights the importance of the agent's role in the situation and their responsibility to provide aid.

4

In what specific situations, according to Frances Kamm, does terminating aid constitute 'letting die,' and what implications does this have?

Frances Kamm suggests that if an agent terminates aid, allowing a potential cause of death to take effect, it constitutes letting die, especially if the agent was providing the aid themselves. Disconnecting someone from life support is an example, this involves a deliberate act that allows a natural cause of death to occur. This highlights that letting someone die can involve active steps rather than mere inaction.

5

How are 'omissions,' 'allowings,' and 'doings' connected in ethical decision-making, and what are the broader implications for moral responsibility?

Omissions, allowings, and doings are intricately linked through concepts like moral obligations and liberty-rights. Understanding the nuances of these concepts helps assess responsibilities and consequences of choices in personal, professional, and societal contexts. The ethics of inaction plays a crucial role in shaping our moral landscape, requiring greater awareness, empathy, and a commitment to ethical conduct.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.