The trivial answer to the trivial question initially posed is you hold zero responsibility. You cannot rationally take any responsibility for an event (the murder) that takes place
after your involvement (witnessing a guy roughing up a woman) and there is no basis for extrapolating from "roughing up" to "murdered". Such thinking -- that extrapolating like that makes sense -- is an untenable concept. However, it is a notion that seems to be creeping into our socialization along with other Orwellian postulates like
thought crime. In terms of the question posed, at the point of witnessing "roughing up" there are many possibilities open to the parties directly involved. For
you as an observer to extrapolate to a
worst case outcome is arrogant and foolish. Unless you are God, you have no idea what is going to happen next.
The trivial question posed does not specify any relationship or recognition. Even the idea of being a fellow "citizen" is not specified so there is not even a basis for assuming even such a tenuous relationship.
You could be a UN observer in Rwanda circa 1994 -- with clear orders not to get involved -- and the "woman" a Tutsi, the "guy" a Hutu. Likewise, the "woman" being roughed up could be your mother and the "guy" could be a known -- to you -- criminal. The specific situation has a tremendous bearing on the choices
you are likely to make. None of this, however, will alter your level of responsibility.
What will increase your level of responsibility from zero, is your being something other than a neutral observer to the situation described.
You might be a facilitator for the "guy" roughing up the "woman". Then, you might be held equally responsible for the eventual outcome. Again, this is not something specified in the question and a specific situation would dictate the extent to which such a judgement would hold.
papasmerf said:
To value your life as more important than anothers shows it has no value to others.
Of course
your life is more valueable to you than that of an
other. If you have a problem with that base survival programming, you have a problem with being human. The extent to which you are willing to
risk your own life depends on the circumstances and your socialization. We are all socialized to accept a degree risk of harm to self for the sake of some recognized others. It is true this base valuation creates a nominal contradiction at any level of analysis beyond the individual. Social order is tenuous even in a well established society.
