Everyday most of us fail to perform many charitable or benevolent acts that would alleviate or prevent suffering somewhere in the world. Moral philosophers have tended to consider failures to prevent suffering to be less important than acts which directly produce it. For example, letting someone die whom we could save is generally thought to be less heinous than murder. In part, philosophers are hesitant to consider omissions to be as bad as actions because they do not want to adopt (...) a position which puts people under such boundless obligations that they could not or would not comply with them. In Violence and Responsibility, John Harris contends that despite the drastic revision required of our ordinary moral beliefs, we are responsible for any harm we could prevent and we should face the moral implications of such responsibility. To support his contention, Harris examines and rejects a number of arguments to show that acts are more important than omissions. He believes we should acknowledge both our almost boundless obligations to help others and our need to revise our usual moral beliefs. One such revision that Harris proposes is a "survival lottery" which requires the killing of a fairly selected dying person whenever his organs could be used to save at least two people. Although the lottery involves killing an innocent person, it saves lives. To fail to institute such a lottery makes us responsible for the deaths of all those who could be saved. Harris's book is directed at a very important but oft-neglected issue in moral theory; it deserves to be widely read and discussed. Harris includes a useful bibliography for those who wish to do additional reading on the topic.--Milton Goldinger, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. (shrink)