Both sides of the argument would be greatly appreciated.
Yes- if one has knowledge that, with action, could prevent a tragedy, then I believe that one has a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to act on it.
Could the OP be a little more specific? Is there a particular situation that can be drawn on as an example?
Edmund Burke, “All that’s required for evil to triumph is good men do nothing.”
Yes it does, it’s going to sound like blaming the victim but take the Penn State case. Those first kids abused by Sandusky could have used their knowledge to protect future victims. The first victims probably knew that they weren’t the first nor probably the last, but they sat on that information and other kids were victimized.
I don’t expect the young kids to say something, but once the first victims got to teenage and older, hell yes they had an ethical responsibility to speak up. Yes, Sandusky actually did the crimes but if I was one of the early survivors I would have a tremendous amount of guilt.
Sure. To illustrate, take an extreme case. If someone knew a terrorist was going to nuke New York, and didn’t even try to notify the authorities, wouldn’t that be terribly wrong? Shrugging and saying “Well, I live upstate” would not be much of an excuse.
The waters get murkier with more reasonable examples, like diggerwam’s (but with whom I nonetheless agree).
I took the question to be more like the ethical responsibility of a general knowledge or skill rather than knowledge of specific crimes/events. For example, does a doctor have an ethical responsibility to use his medical knowledge whenever and wherever it is called upon? This IMO is a little murkier than the obvious “I know terrorists will nuke NYC but say nothing” scenario; certainly Samuel Mudd would see it that way.
I think we need to take wisdom into account as well, as unguided knowledge spewing can have a negative effect on society.
The Biblical metaphor is not without merit. The knowledge of good and evil, in itself, forces us to make moral decisions. Human sapience compels us to make choices, every day, which affect the rights, freedoms, and well-being of others. Simply deciding whether or not to have a hamburger for lunch has follow-on effects that lead to deforestation in Brazil, global warming in the Maldives, and job losses in Japan.
One could point to the Buddhist ideal of non-involvement; since every action keeps the wheel spinning, the wisest course is not to act. There is some philosophic merit in this view, but, in the most pragmatic terms, it doesn’t help a lot. I am damn well going to have something for lunch; I am not devout enough to take up a begging bowl and sit on the sidewalk, eschewing all moral action entirely.
So…yes. We have knowledge, and that means power, and that means – um – well, Spider-Man said it best. With great power comes great responsibility.
Rolled tacos.
I agree, however, what happens in a situation where a young man is a boxer or a martial arts expert, but he has a family that needs him to support him. Assuming there’s no draft, would it be a good idea for him to go into the Army. And of course, he believes the U.S. Army is acting in an important role.
You could at least present one side, yourself. Or is this homework?
This is homework. All I’m trying to say is sometimes it’s not that easy to make an ethical decision. Forcing to make a decision between responsibilities to family and country is not an easy one. For most drafts they don’t force people to choose. The draft may exempt the married man with dependents.