Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Question

Answer

Pro: Provided that those judging the indifferent walker know that the walker is indifferent (and not otherwise affected in some way and so unable to participate in the assistance of the child), this seems right to me.

Poverty Relief (2022 Central APA)

Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Pros

Cons

Provided that those judging the indifferent walker know that the walker is indifferent (and not otherwise affected in some way and so unable to participate in the assistance of the child), this seems right to me.

Selected claim, opposing its parent

Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Pro claim 1

Provided that those judging the indifferent walker know that the walker is indifferent (and not otherwise affected in some way and so unable to participate in the assistance of the child), this seems right to me.