ABSTRACT
If we are responsible for harm which we could have prevented and if we believe that we should not harm others, we will find ourselves committed to a morality which challenges many of our basic beliefs and one which makes disturbing demands. We have, then, two ways of determining the state of any world in which we are able to intervene. One is to intervene and to change the state of that world, the other is to refrain from intervention and to leave everything as it is. The formulation of the distinction between acts and omissions that the author prefer is that between positive actions and negative actions, for the author concern is to sensitise people to what they are doing to each other. We start in perhaps a surprising place with the concept of violence. This has both ‘historical’ and theoretical justifications which need explaining.
