Blind man goes hunting!

[Sidoh]

How so? You're allowing someone to die when you have the chance to save them; same circumstances.

The circumstances are completely different.  You're making the choice to end whatever is left of their life (maybe it's even fair to say they aren't alive...) because you think it's what is best for them or what they would have wanted.

It would depend on the wishes of the person who is now a vegetable.  Many people will ask their loved ones to not let them live on in that state.  Especially in this case, I don't think it's immoral at all.

I don't agree with your definition.  Neither does Merriam-Webster.

Seriously?

Main Entry:
    1mor·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1moral
Pronunciation:
    \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function:
    adjective
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date:
    14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

It's more appropriate to look at the entry for the noun.

a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Morality is passive.  It seems outrageous to think it only applies to actions.  It's a behavioral contract.  Behavior is the way someone acts or reacts in a situation.  A reaction can be to do nothing.

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

Exactly.

"behaviour" doesn't imply action or inaction. Inaction is still a type of behaviour.

So what? There is an worse extreme beyond inaction, which centers the inaction on the moral scale.

I disagree.  The morality of a reaction cannot be measured unless the circumstances are revealed.

George sees a car drive by the street across from his house.  He reacts by doing nothing.
Immoral?  Of course not.

In the other circumstances, doing nothing is immoral (provided that the perceptions of right/wrong are roughly the same).

[Camel]

Okay, I can agree at a fundamental level with everything you've said there, but I don't think it discounts what I've said per se. I still don't think inaction can be inherently wrong, and I'll ask you to focus on that statement to avoid this argument becoming cyclical.

[Sidoh]

Okay, I can agree at a fundamental level with everything you've said there, but I don't think it discounts what I've said per se. I still don't think inaction can be inherently wrong, and I'll ask you to focus on that statement to avoid this argument becoming cyclical.

No one has said inaction can be inherently wrong.  That would be stupid.  As I said previously:

The morality of a reaction cannot be measured unless the circumstances are revealed.

[Camel]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

[Sidoh]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

How about that weather?

[iago]

This makes me think of the people living by Auschwitz who assumed that they were just living next to an especially screamy pie factory.

[Camel]

Okay then, I guess there's nothing left to discuss?

How about that weather?

Screamy :D