It depends where you live. In some places, not giving warning when you recognize a peril is illegal. In any event, allowing someone to step to their death unknowingly when you might give warning is a moral failing. Additionally, unless that person is trying kill you or someone else, you have no moral excuse for not warning them of the peril. It is not up to any individual to determine that someone else should die.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Common Sense (05-21-2018)
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
I think it's a pretty clear cut moral case. You need to save the person, whether by warning them, or by physically intervening.
Think of what happens if you do nothing. Play this tape through. You live the rest of your life knowing that you let someone die. It affects your conscience whether you "let it" or not. Either you will be eaten by guilt, or you will have a lessened appreciation for life, since you've already seen one guy die and didn't do anything to stop it.
Essentially by doing nothing, one is playing games with mortality. It's like playing "God." To me, that is no different than tying a person up and torturing them just to "see what happens."
There is definitely a moral obligation to prevent the person's death, even if you think they are the worst person on the planet.
Faith can move mountains, but don't forget to bring your shovel.
I don't understand the lack of morality one would need to possess to not warn someone who was in danger.