The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy (opens in new tab)

Amusing the title is the "Copenhagen Trap" (I know it's a reference to the Copenhagen Interpretation), since Denmark actually have laws about duty to help.

The Danish penal code § 253[1] punishes people with up to 2 years in prison, those who - without high risk to themselves or others - intentionally do not help someone after ability, who is clearly life threatened.

Additionally, the Danish rules of the road § 9[2] have rules for acting in the event of an accident; specifically, that they have a duty to help.

[1] https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2025/1294#P253 [2] https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2024/1312#P9

> how it became encoded into Western institutions,

> This is not a human universal. Continental Civil Law systems (France, Germany) criminalize failure to rescue

Might want to phrase "western institutions" a bit more precisely. The parts of Europe I know have good protections for Samaritans & the article itself even acknowledges some of this too.

In Poland all you are allowed is literally calling the cops/medics. It's easy to get convicted if you hurt an attacker on self defence.

You are not allowed to use let's say knife to protect yourself from random attack on the street.

Actually attacking some random person in the middle of the day (sucker punch) is not even a crime prosecuted by the law... Even if you are bleeding and the attack is not provoked in any way.

Insanity

> You try to save them. You succeed, but break their rib doing CPR. Legally: they can sue you. Morally: "was that level of force really necessary?"

Yes, CPR breaks ribs as a routine thing https://www.cprcoursebrisbane.com.au/does-cpr-break-ribs/#el... legal standards acknowledge that fact and moral ones should too.

Also, duty to help does exist all over the "west". And even where it does not exist, good samaritan laws are not merely a sidenote, they in fact protect people when providing help.

> The term "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" names the phenomenon: like observing a particle collapses its wavefunction in quantum mechanics, interacting with a problem makes you responsible for it. Ignoring the problem grants immunity.

The author is ignoring a phenomenon that is so closely related I would just call it the same thing: interacting isn't necessary.

Just mentioning that a problem is likely to occur is, in general, enough to get you blamed for causing the problem.

This formalises what I've tried to articulate for years now and can be applied to the minuscule scales I work at.

All too frequently do people wait for the mace of circumstance than to act and risk the reed of agency.

A great essay. I would say this is 'business ethics' for certain. It is not typically personal ethics, nor Christian or Muslim ethics. But this describes better than anything I have read what happens to every corporation, eventually. Bean counters and ombsbudsmen vs operators, day 1 vs day 2, all comes down to this. If you are CEO, you must always side with the operator, the 'man in the arena'. It is difficult to do it but that's what your authority is for. Where this falls into serious trouble is with externalities. For this we still do need strong regulators.

In many countries it is VERY illegal to watch someone die and do nothing.

The United States, thankfully, is not the same as the universe, as much as Americans find that hard to believe.

The article mentions but doesn't seem to link to https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QXpxioWSQcNuNnNTy/...

There is another asymmetry that this article misses. Fear leads to inaction. Hope leads to action. The article seems to argue that we need to punish inaction. But this goes against the principle I just mentioned. Instead we could (and do) reward action. Recall the profiteer in point VII. Maybe he was critized. But he also did make a profit. Reward. In China, passing good samaritian laws undid damage. Why because lessening fear was enough for hope to prevail. Hope of gratitude and reward.

Like anon908 I also thought this was llm-generated, but unlike him I thought it was still a worthwhile read.

> Result: we are ruled by the Unstained Incompetent. The system selects for people whose primary skill is avoiding decisions. These are not the people who will reform the system. They are the people the system was designed to produce.

I'm choosing to translate "the system" here as the entrenched bureaucracy that has grown up in the Western world in the last century.

More patriotic leaders have emerged where elections remain meaningful, and those leaders are ruthlessly attacked by "the system".

Which is an ironically non-passive behavior mode.

> You try to save them. You fail. They die anyway. Legally: potential liability for negligent rescue. Morally: "why didn't you do it properly?"

> You try to save them. You succeed, but break their rib doing CPR. Legally: they can sue you. Morally: "was that level of force really necessary?"

Many countries have legal safeguards against these kinds of suits.

> You watch someone drown. You do nothing. Legally: no liability. Morally: "tragic, but not your fault."

And many countries have legal safeguards against not helping.

Author here. Thanks for the corrections.

I revised the essay, my priors were off. Added Good Samaritan data (zero successful CPR lawsuits in 30 years), duty-to-rescue statutes across Europe, and a new section on self-defense showing the trap cuts across Common Law/Civil Law (UK restrictive, Germany/Poland permissive).

I know this article is focusing on legal responsibility, but if you are going to consider moral culpability for inaction you must also factor in capability.

If a very weak person does not have the strength to perform CPR, they should not feel guilty for failing to perform it.

You also have to consider the costs involved. Somewhere out there is a homeless person who is going to die in the cold tonight. I’m not vastly wealthy, but I could afford to save them if I dropped everything I was doing, searched for them, and found them in time. It is in my power to save them, but at great personal expense. Therefore, I do not hold myself morally responsible for not doing so.

Now consider the billionaire. By merely uttering the command, the smallest effort, they could feed, house, provide medical care, and educate an enormous number of people in poverty. Remember what Uncle Ben said. With great power comes great responsibility. The blood is on their hands.