&gt; It&#x27;s very much a thing.<p>The author states his definition as &quot;the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it.&quot; No one subscribes to that ethics, hence it&#x27;s not a thing (anywhere outside&#x27;s the author&#x27;s distorted view of others, that is).<p>OTOH, saying that the level of your responsibility for another individual may correlate with the benefit they give you (e.g. you make a profit) seems like a reasonable thing. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1&#x2F; we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2&#x2F; if we somehow benefit from it, or 3&#x2F; if we benefit from them in any way at all. Each of these may of course increase the responsibility by different amounts.<p>Points 2 and 3 seem like a natural conclusion of the ideal of fairness and reciprocity. Your contribution to the good of others should be commensurate with their contribution to yours.<p>&gt; Coldtea explicitly said he&#x27;s not responsible for the pregnant woman &quot;because I&#x27;m not making money off of her&quot;, implying that if he were to observe&#x2F;interact with her he would be responsible.<p>No, that&#x27;s what <i>you</i> explicitly said when you tried hard to not understand other people&#x27;s arguments. coldtea said no such thing. coldtea said that they wouldn&#x27;t <i>pay</i> for the woman&#x27;s maternity leave, not that their responsibility towards her is nil. coldtea&#x27;s level of responsibility simply does not reach the point of owing her maternity leave.