You did try to define human decency in your post after calling his definition wrong, which is why I brought it up. In my opinion, if you have the power to help someone and you stand by, then yeah, you're kind of a dick. I do understand the dilemma here, but that's why most places use a public system in the first place.
My apologies since I did not make my post clear.
What I meant to say was that my "definition" is not any sort of ultimate truth, but simply an alternative interpretation that is equally valid. Morality is a subjective subject, and to a degree (which I believe this falls in) we all have the right to our own interpretations. That is why I hate it when people (and there is a significant cultural divide between Europe and conservative Americans on this issue) so easily point fingers and label people over the subject.
By simply pointing out the possibility for disagreement on the issue, I meant to refute the premise that inaction is
clearly (because it is not by any means clear) a "FUCKING LACK OF FUCKING HUMAN DECENCY," which is a very strong accusation.
Because frankly, that is irrational and unfair.
@Cantab-- I think you're splitting hairs, but here I will rephrase it:
In my opinion, choosing not to help others is not immoral nor unethical.
You are not making the world a better place by doing so, but then you are not committing crimes either-- you are not doing anything, and thus not doing anything wrong. This is a matter of opinion that can fairly be taken either direction, so it is unfair to accuse people of lacking human decency over this issue.