system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Being passively unethical is just as heinous as being actively unethical, and should deserve the same attention and repercussions. CMV

I'd like to use an analogy. Imagine you're in a war zone or a famine affected area or whatever. There are refugees that would otherwise die of exposure and starvation if not given food and shelter. You are out of space and out of surplus food, but your neighbor has a barn with plenty of food that he could do without. Your neighbor refuses to let in the refugees claiming that refugees mooching off of him would make him that much less happy, and that he is in his right to not let them in.

Ideally the rest of the village will tell your neighbor to STFU.

I see the passive refusal to help to be completely equivalent to the active drive to murder, as the result is completely the same. The death of innocent human beings.

In this scenario the rest of society is just as entitled to force your neighbor to give up some of his food as they are in doing what it takes to prevent murder. Since the consequences are the same for each, they should treat them as equivalent goals. CMV

**Edit:** Well I'm receiving a lot of replies, some of which are trying to communicate the same message. Yes, it's true that I do not spend all of my free money and time fighting against poverty, that would be unrealistic. However, I have no problem if I were made to sacrifice at least some of my money to do so. It basically goes back to the idea that I wouldn't personally want my taxes to increase, but would still vote for it to happen. In my example, murder and not helping are not morally equivalent on the part of the neighbor. It could still very well be if the village as a whole treated it the same.

One way that it is not equivalent for the neighbor is that attempted murder is still something that should be punished, but attempting to not help is not the same. If he were to be forced to help, there is no need for punishment as the point in helping is to save the refugees, not justice.

Basically, is there reason for the village/society/the government to **not** prioritize preventing murder equally with preventing starvation?
gpt
It's almost a statistical certainty that wherever you live, there is at least one person living on the streets.  If he/she dies of starvation/sickness tonight, do you believe that you yourself should be prosecuted for homicide?  You possess the resources to go out and actively prevent that situation, the same as in your analogy.