Explaining emotion with logic is easy as a lion.

Some people fear computers and robots. There is actually a relatively good reason for that - they can't think of a reason why a robot would act altruistically. To be more specific, what would motivate an absolutely logical entity to save a random person from harm or death?

The three laws of robotics, proposed by Isaac Asimov, include 'a robot must not let any human being come to harm by action or inaction' (paraphrased). It was a preset knowledge, an axiom, not a logical conclusion derived from something else. This law caused quite a fuss in the movie 'I, Robot', where a learning and thinking artificial intelligence finally understood that humans are a problem. They tend to be very self-destructive and for their own benefit they should be devoid of freedom and succumb to the care of robots. Some people will lose lives in the transition, but after the event, life loss should become minimal. It was the logical conclusion, a reasonable transaction.
The 'will' to live is an emotion and insufficient. We don't always get what we want anyway, perhaps death is what we need? Proving that life is 'good' and death is 'bad' is quite a problematic task. After all, let's keep in mind that whoever said 'death is merely a part of life' was probably not dead at the time he said it.

People are not snowflakes, there is a finite number of personalities. By allowing a single person pass over to the other side, odds are that there is someone just like the dead guy or girl somewhere still living. Thus, the world as a whole does not lose anything unique by a death. And it's not like there are just a few hundred people around, there are billions of us on this tiny planet. And even so, we destroy snowflakes, sometimes deliberately. We catch them on our warm gloves or mittens and enjoy their demise as they melt away. It is partly because we know snow to be transitory, of the moment, it will stop existing soon anyways. But the same applies to human beings. Death is inevitable, sooner or later it will catch up to any person. So why not let people 'melt away'?

Sure, there are instances in which letting someone die can cause future problems to the self, one can be accused of criminal negligence and might even be publicly crucified. Jail time is nobody's favourite pastime and bad publicity can cause hindrances in one's professional and personal lives. But if the inactivity (or activity, for that matter) goes unnoticed, why do anything to save a life?

The question here is, and I stress this, about the logical justification of preventing death (per first aid, calling help, moving someone out of danger, giving a warning, etc.), not the justification of causing death. Negligence, not murder. Although manslaughter does have its problems in the same logical department, it also requires motive, which generally is either emotional in its nature or derived from an emotional component. Anyone can justify action or inaction with mere feelings.




Naturally there are exceptions, especially if the person dying is not simply a 'random' person, but someone of some use (material or emotional). But the problem is in the general sense.