Morality... is there a difference

[techbeck]

Just now, Draconian Guppy said:

So for you intent should be punished more than the result?   

Yes.  #1, was a thought our crime with the intent to cause harm and others pain.  #2, she had no idea what would happen.

[Steven P. Administrators]

You'd have to prove intent, in scenario one, the mass murderer could also just claim it to be an accident. Does it make it easier to judge though if the first scenario is described as a mass murderer (by carrying out the act) and the second being "daisy duke" which sounds harmless in itself but comes to the same conclusion?

 

Certainly something to think about.

 

The first has intent, the second doesn't. In both cases it would still need to be proven.

[Draconian Guppy]

2 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Well, that is really an impossible question to answer.  Yes, the two scenarios should obviously be dealt with differently.  As for Daisy...I really don't know because as with most tragedies... nothing is clear cut.  Also, the town should implement various safeguards so that the well couldn't be inadvertently poisoned in the future.

lol that escalated quickly! see below

2 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Yes.  #1, was a thought our crime with the intent to cause harm and others pain.  #2, she had no idea what would happen.

But the result was the same?

2 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

You'd have to prove intent, in scenario one, the mass murderer could also just claim it to be an accident. Does it make it easier to judge though if the first scenario is described as a mass murderer (by carrying out the act) and the second being "daisy duke" which sounds harmless in itself but comes to the same conclusion?

 

Certainly something to think about.

 

The first has intent, the second doesn't. In both cases it would still need to be proven.

My point exactly.

 

Our point of view seems to judge intent only when It does not include something personal (eg. in this case if someone who died was related to us )

[techbeck]

4 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

But the result was the same?

Intent makes all the difference to me.  And personally, would not change my mind if someone related to me was one of the victims.  I would be more concerned on finding the person who was negligent to leave a bucket laying around that as used for hazardous material.

[Draconian Guppy]

4 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Intent makes all the difference to me.  And personally, would not change my mind if someone related to me was one of the victims.  I would be more concerned on finding the person who was negligent to leave a bucket laying around that as used for hazardous material.

Ah, being objective.

[techbeck]

1 minute ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Ah, being objective.

Sure.  Since the OP left out the 3rd option.  The person who was negligent in leaving the bucket laying around. 

[Draconian Guppy]

2 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Sure.  Since the OP left out the 3rd option.  The person who was negligent in leaving the bucket laying around. 

Lol, that is another way of looking at it, however, for argument sakes, lets stick to the facts with no assumptions of who what where  

Also,There will be a follow up for this  

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Maybe the bucket was stolen and lost, maybe it fell of the back of a passing truck.    We could spend all day adding as much complexity to the scenario as we want.

[Draconian Guppy]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

Maybe the bucket was stolen and lost, maybe it fell of the back of a passing truck.    We could spend all day adding as much complexity to the scenario as we want.

agreed, so please, facts only!!!

[TAZMINATOR]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

Maybe the bucket was stolen and lost, maybe it fell of the back of a passing truck.    We could spend all day adding as much complexity to the scenario as we want.

Hey!  Don't tell what truck it is...  shhh..

 

 

[techbeck]

3 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Lol, that is another way of looking at it, however, for argument sakes, lets stick to the facts with no assumptions of who what where  

Also,There will be a follow up for this  

Just the way my mind thinks.  I think it is important on where the bucket came from. 

[Draconian Guppy]

Just now, techbeck said:

Just the way my mind thinks.  I think it is important on where the bucket came from. 

Is it really? 200 people died in this scenario, how is "how it happened" more important than  "it happened"?

 

(not trolling, responding for the sake of the discussion)

[techbeck]

6 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Is it really? 200 people died in this scenario, how is "how it happened" more important than  "it happened"?

 

(not trolling, responding for the sake of the discussion)

How it happens makes a difference.  Specially if the bucket was left laying around and not properly disposed off.  Negligence on the owners part was a main reason why 200 people died.  If the bucket owner was responsible, 200 people never would have died.   So to me, the owner holds some fault if not the majority.  And knowing how/why helps prevent something like this from happening again.

[Draconian Guppy]

4 minutes ago, techbeck said:

How it happens makes a difference.  Specially if the bucket was left laying around and not properly disposed off.  Negligence on the owners part was a main reason why 200 people died.  If the bucket owner was responsible, 200 people never would have died.  And knowing how/why helps prevent something like this from happening again.

Interesting reply!   More people should be found guilty according to you then?  What if the bucket was dropped by accident by a disposal truck because he/she was rushing because he/she had a medical emergency or was threatened to death by a thief at gunpoint? Will then that person be guilty as well?  Does the bucket origin stop mattering at some point?

 

edit: have to run. ill catch up later.

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

9 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Is it really? 200 people died in this scenario, how is "how it happened" more important than  "it happened"?

 

(not trolling, responding for the sake of the discussion)

Because one person set out to kill the 200 people ... and other accidently killed 200 people.  There is a difference ... it is unfortunate for the 200 people ... but you can not give Daisy the same punishment as the person who meant to kill.  Accidents happen, through neglect or many-many other reasons which have cost lives ... but accidents are different than flat out murder. 

 

What is your opinion?

[xendrome]

The first one is intentional and the second one is an accident. So these examples are totally apples and oranges.

[TAZMINATOR]

9 minutes ago, xendrome said:

The first one is intentional and the second one is an accident. So these examples are totally apples and oranges.

Never know.  It could be other way around.

 

Like I said depends on what they find.

[techbeck]

2 hours ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Interesting reply!   More people should be found guilty according to you then?  What if the bucket was dropped by accident by a disposal truck because he/she was rushing because he/she had a medical emergency or was threatened to death by a thief at gunpoint? Will then that person be guilty as well?  Does the bucket origin stop mattering at some point?

 

edit: have to run. ill catch up later.

 

Really, boils down to intent or negligence in order to be guilty of something.  If you had no idea what was going to happen, no responsibility to prevent something....then really cannot see how someone can be held at fault. 

[CrashG]

4 hours ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Is there a difference...

 

Scenario #1

 

Say there's a town of 500 who drink water out of one well.

 

Along comes a mass murderer and poisons the well and kills 200 people who drink that water...

 

 

 

Scenario #2

 

Same town, well and people.

 

 

 

Along comes Daisy Duke and mistakenly used a container that previously had been used for a toxic substance, as consequence the well is now poisoned and when 200 folk consume the water, they die too.

 

 

 

Now, for you, neowinians, what is your stand, is there a difference on how person #1 should be treated to in comparison to person #2?   NOT COUNTING your local/national laws, but how you stand in your sense of morality in terms of what you think is right or wrong?

Based solely on the info provided (which is all the info I have and not reading anything else into it), Yes, they should have different penalties/punishments due to intent, but both deserve something. Scenario 2 clearly states Daisy mistakenly did it.

 

4 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

Maybe have cats drink the water first.

Or dogs

[Draconian Guppy]

4 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

Because one person set out to kill the 200 people ... and other accidently killed 200 people.  There is a difference ... it is unfortunate for the 200 people ... but you can not give Daisy the same punishment as the person who meant to kill.  Accidents happen, through neglect or many-many other reasons which have cost lives ... but accidents are different than flat out murder. 

 

What is your opinion?

My first and honest opinion would be, hang them both. However my more "understanding side" would say, further the investigations. But it again boils down to two things:

 

1. If by any case I was related to death, there is almost no possible way not to feel biased.

2.  “If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them" Can be interpreted in many ways, eg. he who does not do good, must be treated just as one who does evil .  Daisy duke did not intentionally poison her neighbors, but didn't do anything and everything possible NOT to do so. Another example would be  "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies "    Daisy can't prove she did everything possible to avoid poisoning the town and not knowing what the bucket had, does not make her innocent.  eg. Her lack of caring/knowledge can also be thought of as having intent.

 

4 hours ago, xendrome said:

The first one is intentional and the second one is an accident. So these examples are totally apples and oranges.

Disagree, the end result is the same, more like red apple vs green apple

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 hour ago, Draconian Guppy said:

My first and honest opinion would be, hang them both. However my more "understanding side" would say, further the investigations. But it again boils down to two things:

 

1. If by any case I was related to death, there is almost no possible way not to feel biased.

2.  “If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them" Can be interpreted in many ways, eg. he who does not do good, must be treated just as one who does evil .  Daisy duke did not intentionally poison her neighbors, but didn't do anything and everything possible NOT to do so. Another example would be  "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies "    Daisy can't prove she did everything possible to avoid poisoning the town and not knowing what the bucket had, does not make her innocent.  eg. Her lack of caring/knowledge can also be thought of as having intent.

 

Disagree, the end result is the same, more like red apple vs green apple

aaah.  Ok, not sure what your agenda is with this thread (i.e. you're now injecting that she didn't do anything to stop it/lack of caring/etc. which wasn't stated in your OP) ... but I still respectfully disagree.  If anything, hazardous substances are regulated (assuming this scenario is in the US or other countries which have regulations) so whoever left the toxic substance canister laying around should be found and charged with illegally disposing of hazardous materials and possibly be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

 

/thread

[MikeChipshop Member]

Melicious intent should always be punished more. Why? Because the intent was there to harm and that intent can continue on to harm other people. 

In this scenario, Daisy made an innocent mistake, should she be punished for her negligence, of course, but so long as it can be proven that she did indeed have no malicious intent.

[Dot Matrix]

Both are equally as guilty. One through intent, and the other through negligance. 

[Draconian Guppy]

8 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

aaah.  Ok, not sure what your agenda is with this thread (i.e. you're now injecting that she didn't do anything to stop it/lack of caring/etc. which wasn't stated in your OP) ... but I still respectfully disagree.  If anything, hazardous substances are regulated (assuming this scenario is in the US or other countries which have regulations) so whoever left the toxic substance canister laying around should be found and charged with illegally disposing of hazardous materials and possibly be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

 

/thread

No no no, you got it wrong, that is what I think of the scenario since you asked what my opinion was on the scenarios.   see below

 

No agenda, just interesting topic that came to my thoughts during my daily dog walk  

2 hours ago, Dot Matrix said:

Both are equally as guilty. One through intent, and the other through negligance. 

If both are equally guilty, why must one be punished more than the other? How is guilt measureable if the end result is the same?

 

3 hours ago, MikeChipshop said:

Melicious intent should always be punished more. Why? Because the intent was there to harm and that intent can continue on to harm other people. 

In this scenario, Daisy made an innocent mistake, should she be punished for her negligence, of course, but so long as it can be proven that she did indeed have no malicious intent.

As per my above reply, that is exactly my point:

 

We take into account when a person can prove she did not have malicious intent, but how come, we do not judge in the same manner their lack of good intent?

[FiB3R]

 

 

The above is a clip from the UK TV show "Gogglebox". A reality TV type thing where people discus stuff that has been on TV the previous week. It's usually light hearted/funny. This particular segment is relevant to the discussion, and very sad, yet amazing.

The actual documentary can been seen here in full... http://my-365.ru/video/x3u3pdf_the-prosecutors-real-crime-and-punishment-2016-episode-1-the-charge_tv