Suppose something happens that was in your power to prevent? If you had no malicious intent, was it still your fault? Does letting someone die when you know you have the ability to save them make you a murderer? All of these are questions that philosophical thinkers have been trying to answer for centuries. The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions holds that it is morally worse to commit an act that causes a negative event than to simply allow the event to occur without doing anything to prevent it from occurring. In essence, there is an inherent moral difference between acting and not acting. In a sense, we have more responsibility for what happens as a result of our doing something than for what happens as a result of our allowing it to happen. A proponent of the doctrine of acts and omissions would say that in certain circumstances killing is morally worse than letting someone die. Failure to help someone who is bleeding due to an accidental amputation is undoubtedly serious, but certainly not as serious as cutting off their arm....