|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:26 PM |
|
|
Then you shouldn't be setting your hypotheticals in courtrooms. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:33 PM |
|
|
I read every post in a thread, so I feel inclined to asnwer to some of the Dilemmas that most appeal to me, and some would say I have better things to do .
4.0 I'd politely tell her to keep her snow to herself.
5. I actually see this from a different point of view, the kid wants to barbie to undress her (we all did it ), ergo I think that to me means he'll turn out a heterosexual as opposed to purchasing action-men.
6. Abortion, I share my fathers feelings on this (though he's 100% father of 8 children and none of them have anything wrong with them so he never had to actually abort any of us), but a child deserves to be born perfect, a criple child causes far more suffering and pain for everyone. But I would wait until said child is born, if I must kill my child I want to be 100% that he/she is defficient and not some percentage chance.
8. Of-course I would, no question about it, I want the game, game is provided, end of story, objective accomplished, done. Simples  That is of-course if I was in that situation.
9. He did, but it is a most cruel deed from the husband I must say, she should be permitted to see them on a regular basis though, nothing worse then your dying and being denied to see your children.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dilemma 10:Quote:
a. I invite you to my house for dinner. When you arrive, I serve you a casserole made from (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools. You eat it, and consequently die.
Malicious intent. Murder.
Quote:
b. We encounter each other in the forest. You mention that you’re hungry. I point to (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools, and ask why you don’t eat some of those. You say you can’t tell which things of that sort are safe to eat and which aren’t. “Oh, I’m an expert,” I assure you, “and I can guarantee that those ones are safe.” So you eat some, and consequently die.
Malicious intent. Murder.
Quote:
c. I post a picture of (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools on my blog, and announce: “Some people think these are poisonous, but in my opinion they’re perfectly safe.” So when you come across some toadstools that match the picture I posted, you eat them, and consequently die.
Malicious intent. Murder.
Quote:
d. I tell you, “I’ve received a revelation from Zeus, and if you recite the following formula for 90 minutes a day, I can guarantee that you’ll get into heaven when you die.” So you waste 90 minutes every day reciting my formula – and when you die you go to hell like the stinker you are.
In which case are your rights violated, if any?
Did you know what you claimed was false? Then you committed something worse than murder but not punishable by man's law.
If you thought what you said was true then you were deceived and trying to help.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 09:31 PM |
|
|
It takes more than malicious intent for something to be murder. There also has to be the act - something you do (or, in some cases, fail to do). I can sit here and think, "Die, John Smith!" but unless I go out and kill him, I'm not a murderer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It takes more than malicious intent for something to be murder. There also has to be the act - something you do (or, in some cases, fail to do). I can sit here and think, "Die, John Smith!" but unless I go out and kill him, I'm not a murderer.
In the first three instances you did take an action and you had malicious intent.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:43 AM |
|
|
Elodin, it's only legally murder if the intent was to kill. For example, if I intend to smack you with a baseball bat to hurt you, but I never intended to kill you, and you die anyway, it's not legally murder. That'd be voluntary manslaughter (or something else, depending on what state you're in). It's only murder if I smack you with a bat and actually intended for you to die when I did it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:12 AM |
|
|
In either of the first three cases he would be either trying to kill the person or showing extreme indifference to human life and would be charged with murder if the appropriate evidence were found. If you are out in the woods alone with a person and persuade him to eat a poisonous mushroom obviously it will be next to impossible to prove you murdered the person unless you were stupid enough to record the even or someone happened to witness what you did. But I thought this thread was about moral dilemmas not about obtaining a legal conviction.
Clicky
Quote:
A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person,or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person. Murder may also be committed when a person commits or attempts to commit arson, burglary, escape, kidnapping, rape, robbery, sodomy or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant if there is any, causes the death of any person.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 05:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In the first three instances you did take an action and you had malicious intent.
Yes, but your action isn't what killed them - their action did.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 06:33 AM |
|
|
|
Google "wife poisons husband" and you will come up with a number of cases where a wife poisoned her husband and was charged with murder. This is pretty much identical to your first scenario as such poisoning is generally administered through food the wife prepares. I know of no instances matching the following two scenarios you presented.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 06:48 AM |
|
|
I agree the first case (A) is murder. The third definitely isn't. The second one is murky.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 02:04 PM |
|
|
2nd one IS murder, if it can proven in court that you KNEW they where lethal.
If it was the difference of shadetone of the mushroms, you could avoid any legal consequenses.
The 3rd one is just trolling, and in this case it WILL BE MACILIOUS INTENT.
It is a bit like "slit your wrists, and let the blood flow, you will feel so much better" posts at 4chan. They SHOULD be condemned for murder, as the intent is harm and harm.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 02:09 PM |
|
|
Though Mvass it's food for the thought, I personally don't think it qualifies as a 'Dilemma'. (since there's none in it ) IMHO.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is a bit like "slit your wrists, and let the blood flow, you will feel so much better" posts at 4chan. They SHOULD be condemned for murder, as the intent is harm and harm.
It's only free speech. For it to be murder, there has to be both intent to harm and an action that harms. The action that harms is absent (as people are harming themselves, not being harmed by others), so it's not murder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:13 PM |
|
|
|
I don't know if that kind of free speech would be tolerated here. though, I've seen some unclear posts here, and no one said anything about them.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:20 PM |
|
|
Mmm yes, if you listen to anyones opinion, you do it at your own risk, but if it is a 'professional' giving false information, then their license should be withdrawn, because it is evident that he/she isn't suitable for the job/profession.
but it isn't murder.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is a bit like "slit your wrists, and let the blood flow, you will feel so much better" posts at 4chan. They SHOULD be condemned for murder, as the intent is harm and harm.
It's only free speech. For it to be murder, there has to be both intent to harm and an action that harms. The action that harms is absent (as people are harming themselves, not being harmed by others), so it's not murder.
Tsk, only in techicalites.
It is the same as claiming that if I poisoned 1 random meal at a caffiteria, it can't be murder because it lacks direct attempt.
Or if you go the "lets use the dictionarys defintion" route? What will that change? That means I will just use a different word.
"Attempt at murder" means that you attempted to kill somebody, directly. Because murder means its done directly doesn't it?
"Attempt at intended harm that results in death" is no different from murder, the intent is also the same. Why treat it as something different? It is no accident, so it can't be manslaugther(if i remember my correct translated legal mumbo jumbo).
If your problem is that "we can't have free speech if that happens", then frankly i could care less. Then the problem is that free speech can't exist because the threshold needed to get into court is too low, and there is a large lack of common sense around too.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:28 PM |
|
|
Manslaughter is not necessarily accidental. Manslaughter only means that the person's death was unintentional. Unintentional death =/= accidental death.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 04:53 PM |
|
|
slightly off topic here but I can't help it: the word is totally unfitting. I mean, how can you call something slaughter and say it defines UNINTENTIONAL death?  Unintentional slaughter... doesn't sound right at all
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 05:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Manslaughter is not necessarily accidental. Manslaughter only means that the person's death was unintentional. Unintentional death =/= accidental death.
Then what is intended death with no direct actions?
I vote for murder.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 05:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is the same as claiming that if I poisoned 1 random meal at a caffiteria, it can't be murder because it lacks direct attempt.
but it can't be unvoluntary murder.
and if I go to the street and fire a gun in random directions and kill someone? isn't it murder? don't tell me it's an accident
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
