[mcv]

> Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction?

It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is.

In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.

[sethammons]

Curious which countries. Fwiw, in the US, you can pull up a lawn chair and watch someone drown instead of offering them any assistance (not saying that is moral). Legal liabilities have been explored including the case where a person is pulled from a burning auto accident and the act of saving them caused back injuries and paralysis. Cue Good Samaritan laws to protect would-be do-gooders but also the acknowledgment that there is no legal liability to act (aside from designated first responder types).

[mcv]

I don't have an exhaustive list for you, but I know it's the case in Netherland. I suspect we're not an exception in this.

[_nalply]

No.

It is only the case if you don't kill someone to save someone else.