Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 19:26:40 GMT -6
Well throwing the and saving the 5 might be seen as the most moral thing to do, but if she does that she will be causing the other man's death and may be held legally accountable for it. She can do nothing and then blame the dead people for standing on the tracks as being responsible for their own deaths
[/li][li]2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?[/quote]
No, because she would be guilty of the fat man's murder
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:33:37 GMT -6
Well Kay..I have not been in death penalty discussions for a long time and I don't view it that way or in that terms. Sorry to disappoint you. Pardon the error, I assumed you had a death penalty section at your board, Missy.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:39:24 GMT -6
But there are problems here when we enlarge the dilemma out into (say) a for-against argument for the DP - which is your point. Personal responsibility here is hard because we are dealing with actors who are equal in status. The DP, all punishment, does not. For example, ask the above questions and replace 'man' with 'convicted murderer' and most people will chose to save the five innocents. Some won't, some will still balk, but most will. And they will do so regardless of the intervention of some sort of mechanic 'other' - in this case the 'state'. So, essentially, change the players and you have a pretty good argument for both deterrent and protection. After all, wouldn't you kill (execute) a murderer if you KNEW (as above) that it would save five innocents? There are other problems, but lets start here Nils. In the accident scenario, you are placing yourself in the position of choosing who will live and who will die. In the murderer scenario, it is the murderer who made the willful choice of taking a life. I think it is comparing apples to oranges
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:40:16 GMT -6
Well Kay..I have not been in death penalty discussions for a long time and I don't view it that way or in that terms. Sorry to disappoint you. Pardon the error, I assumed you had a death penalty section at your board, Missy. I don't usually participate in the discussion. You are welcome to check and see that for yourself
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:48:40 GMT -6
Pardon the error, I assumed you had a death penalty section at your board, Missy. I don't usually participate in the discussion. You are welcome to check and see that for yourself Thanks for the offer, but I believe I'll pass
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:51:34 GMT -6
But there are problems here when we enlarge the dilemma out into (say) a for-against argument for the DP - which is your point. Personal responsibility here is hard because we are dealing with actors who are equal in status. The DP, all punishment, does not. For example, ask the above questions and replace 'man' with 'convicted murderer' and most people will chose to save the five innocents. Some won't, some will still balk, but most will. And they will do so regardless of the intervention of some sort of mechanic 'other' - in this case the 'state'. So, essentially, change the players and you have a pretty good argument for both deterrent and protection. After all, wouldn't you kill (execute) a murderer if you KNEW (as above) that it would save five innocents? There are other problems, but lets start here Nils. In the accident scenario, you are placing yourself in the position of choosing who will live and who will die. In the murderer scenario, it is the murderer who made the willful choice of taking a life. I think it is comparing apples to oranges But you are doing exactly the same thing by supporting the death penalty, choosing who will die. And you stated that not all who murder should die, so you're taking your selection even a step further.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:54:53 GMT -6
No..I am making no choice at all. It is the murderer who made the choice. It is the murderer who put other people's fate in his own hands.
The laws and their punishments were in place. They were not devised for a specific person's crime. Therefore, unless the murderer is MD, he was aware of the stakes prior to committing the crime and chose to go forward despite the potential consequences.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:56:48 GMT -6
I don't usually participate in the discussion. You are welcome to check and see that for yourself Thanks for the offer, but I believe I'll pass Then you will have to take my word for it. I am too busy dealing with issues to participate in on-going discussions as they are taking place. I get to contribute now and then or start a thread, but not to participate in the banter as I am doing with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 20:02:15 GMT -6
Well throwing the and saving the 5 might be seen as the most moral thing to do, but if she does that she will be causing the other man's death and may be held legally accountable for it. She can do nothing and then blame the dead people for standing on the tracks as being responsible for their own deaths [/li][li]2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?[/quote] No, because she would be guilty of the fat man's murder [/quote] large man, not fat man
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 20:02:30 GMT -6
No..I am making no choice at all. It is the murderer who made the choice. It is the murderer who put other people's fate in his own hands. The laws and their punishments were in place. They were not devised for a specific person's crime. Therefore, unless the murderer is MD, he was aware of the stakes prior to committing the crime and chose to go forward despite the potential consequences. Agree the murderer made the choice to murder and the punishment was in place at the time of the act. However, I don't agree with your comment regarding the law not fitting a specific person's crime. If that were the case then all murderers would receive equal punishment correct? And you wouldn't be picking and choosing who will live and who will die.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 20:03:48 GMT -6
Thanks for the offer, but I believe I'll pass Then you will have to take my word for it. I am too busy dealing with issues to participate in on-going discussions as they are taking place. I get to contribute now and then or start a thread, but not to participate in the banter as I am doing with you. Strange that you have time to do that here, but not at a board that you admin.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 20:07:40 GMT -6
What I meant is..the law wasn't written after a person committed his crime. It was already in place. However, our criminal justice system allows for outside influences to be weighed and measured. Yes, it is arbitrary and subjective, depending on the participants and their life experiences.
The defense has the right to choose a judge instead of a jury to decide his case.
The CJS is not fair in all cases. It also works in converse. Many murderers are walking free because they got off on a technicality or because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonsable doubt
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 20:10:50 GMT -6
What I meant is..the law wasn't written after a person committed his crime. It was already in place. However, our criminal justice system allows for outside influences to be weighed and measured. Yes, it is arbitrary and subjective, depending on the participants and their life experiences. The defense has the right to choose a judge instead of a jury to decide his case. The CJS is not fair in all cases. It also works in converse. Many murderers are walking free because they got off on a technicality or because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonsable doubt So how do you decide who dies and who receives LWOP. You already stated that you didn't believe future dangerousness, should be weighed, so what criteria would you use to assess the murderer and decide their fate?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 20:11:57 GMT -6
Then you will have to take my word for it. I am too busy dealing with issues to participate in on-going discussions as they are taking place. I get to contribute now and then or start a thread, but not to participate in the banter as I am doing with you. Strange that you have time to do that here, but not at a board that you admin. Is that okay? I belong to several boards on which I post. However, I always have a window opened to my site. Today is the first time I have participated in a DP discussion here. I have been participating in off-topics.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 20:15:21 GMT -6
Strange that you have time to do that here, but not at a board that you admin. Is that okay? I belong to several boards on which I post. However, I always have a window opened to my site. Today is the first time I have participated in a DP discussion here. I have been participating in off-topics. Your board, your choice, obviously you find this one enjoyable, post away
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 20:17:58 GMT -6
What I meant is..the law wasn't written after a person committed his crime. It was already in place. However, our criminal justice system allows for outside influences to be weighed and measured. Yes, it is arbitrary and subjective, depending on the participants and their life experiences. The defense has the right to choose a judge instead of a jury to decide his case. The CJS is not fair in all cases. It also works in converse. Many murderers are walking free because they got off on a technicality or because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonsable doubt So how do you decide who dies and who receives LWOP. You already stated that you didn't believe future dangerousness, should be weighed, so what criteria would you use to assess the murderer and decide their fate? I didn't say that I didn't believe future dangerous should not be weighed (by the CJS)...I said "I" didn't look into the future. I said the DP is appropriate punishment for murder; however, LWOP is sufficient if that is the conclusion those who heard all the facts of the case came to.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 20:19:45 GMT -6
Is that okay? I belong to several boards on which I post. However, I always have a window opened to my site. Today is the first time I have participated in a DP discussion here. I have been participating in off-topics. Your board, your choice, obviously you find this one enjoyable, post away On my board I am the host. I make sure my members have an enjoyable experience. I don't have that obligation here
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 20:25:39 GMT -6
So how do you decide who dies and who receives LWOP. You already stated that you didn't believe future dangerousness, should be weighed, so what criteria would you use to assess the murderer and decide their fate? I didn't say that I didn't believe future dangerous should not be weighed (by the CJS)...I said "I" didn't look into the future. I said the DP is appropriate punishment for murder; however, LWOP is sufficient if that is the conclusion those who heard all the facts of the case came to. Please explain the difference between giving credence to future dangerousness, and looking into the future, I'm confused, to me they appear to be one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 22, 2009 20:53:13 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
- 2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
best wishes from Sweden nils Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. you can listen to this interesting recording on this problem, you just need to listen from minute 1.00 and a few minutes on... blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/ nils
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 22, 2009 21:06:33 GMT -6
Schrödinger's cat of course ΔxΔp≥ h/2 or the uncertainty principle and you thought I was kidding with Schrödinger's cat
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 21:29:37 GMT -6
I didn't say that I didn't believe future dangerous should not be weighed (by the CJS)...I said "I" didn't look into the future. I said the DP is appropriate punishment for murder; however, LWOP is sufficient if that is the conclusion those who heard all the facts of the case came to. Please explain the difference between giving credence to future dangerousness, and looking into the future, I'm confused, to me they appear to be one in the same. Consider the Scott Peterson case. Personally, I don't see him as a person who is likely to kill again yet does that mean the deaths of his wife and unborn son should go unpunished?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Feb 22, 2009 21:42:10 GMT -6
One question: Are those 6 people retarded? Who stands in the middle of a railroad track? Honestly. It's like playing in traffic.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 22, 2009 21:56:29 GMT -6
One question: Are those 6 people retarded? Who stands in the middle of a railroad track? Honestly. It's like playing in traffic. who said reason had anything to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 22, 2009 22:10:20 GMT -6
here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. It must only be a moral dilemma for Swedes. Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it? The five people are not innocent. They are standing on a railroad track. The risk of being hit by a train is theirs to take. Jane should nuke a bag of popcorn and dial 911. Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it? Nope. Same reason.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 22, 2009 22:21:58 GMT -6
In the accident scenario, you are placing yourself in the position of choosing who will live and who will die. In the murderer scenario, it is the murderer who made the willful choice of taking a life. I think it is comparing apples to oranges Not really, the difference is the latter has more moral weight behind it: innocent life is worth more than non-innocent. These types of dilemmas are designed with one question in mind: 'When is it right to kill'? Most people say 'sometimes', few ever say 'never'. For those of us in the big 'sometimes' camp we should be able to provide some sort of justification. If we can't, then maybe we should think about just why that is.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 22, 2009 22:25:59 GMT -6
Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. So, returning the favour: would you in either scenario take the life of the individual over the five, if the individual concerned was a convicted murderer, and the five were innocents?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 22:44:08 GMT -6
One question: Are those 6 people retarded? Who stands in the middle of a railroad track? Honestly. It's like playing in traffic. Probably not retarded, stupid, which is worse...At the risk of sounding like Joe; The term natural selection comes into my mind . Jane is not god, nor is she an engineer, she has no way of knowing what switching the track can cause, she should mind her own business and either warn them or call emergency. and get out of the way of the train.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 22:57:59 GMT -6
Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. So, returning the favour: would you in either scenario take the life of the individual over the five, if the individual concerned was a convicted murderer, and the five were innocents? What if the individual was a convicted murderer but in the group of 5 there was a person who was going to commit murder that day What is the single person was a wealthy, contributiung member of society but the other 5 were a drain on the system(bludgers). The point is, you don't know, you never will. And should it matter? Choosing who deserves to live more than another person is a very dangerous, slippery slope..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 23:18:02 GMT -6
All she can do realy is hope they hear the train & move to safety, or scream to gain their attention to the train.
no she should not push the man off the bridge if she did she would be charged with murder when he died a horrible death,whats with the scenario nils what has made you ask this.
Is it something to do with if 1 innocent man gets executed its for the sake of the others.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 22, 2009 23:20:51 GMT -6
What if the individual was a convicted murderer but in the group of 5 there was a person who was going to commit murder that day What is the single person was a wealthy, contributiung member of society but the other 5 were a drain on the system(bludgers). The point is, you don't know, you never will. And should it matter? Choosing who deserves to live more than another person is a very dangerous, slippery slope.. Of course, that's life, it's way more complicated than the above dilemmas. They are useful for engaging awareness, but ultimately self-defeating because real life is far messier than these types of absolutes. However, you have just described yourself as belonging to that small (very small) group that believes all killing is wrong? Really? Always?
|
|