|
Something a little deeper...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| skaborough fats |
I have a friend, one of those people who you will hear or see nothing from for months at a time, and who will then arrive on my door step at 4am looking for a place to crash for a few days till he decides where he's off to next. On occasion he sends me an e-mail with a deep philosophical question meant to streatch my mind, or atleast trip me out. Today I received one such e-mail and though I'd share the question with the group.
Which is the worse?
A) To methodically plot the murder of 100 people and attempt to carry through with the plot, but fail.
or
B) Kill one person.
I haven't fully thought this through, so I will post my answer in a while. What do you think?
Cheers,
Fats |
|
|
| SpykeChyld |
| So in the first scenario no one gets hurt, it's just a plan, in the second a person dies. I'd say the first is better. I mean, attempted murder of murder one? which would I rather be charged with? |
|
|
| Vanilla |
| I dunno, if you are thinking the first one then you are gonna try again right? If you are crazy you dont give up so easy. So I say the first one is just as bad as the second. |
|
|
| davinox |
lets think about this.
Obviously if you do number one, you are ed up and extremely bitter. You want to kill these people with all of your heart. So you are already in bad shape, and failing, that will u up even more.
And if you kill a person, it doesnt necissarilly mean you are ed up. Lots of people kill, soldiers, generals, ex.
So I say Number One is worse |
|
|
| TeKnoHe@d2025 |
I dunno...you can look at number one various ways...one way is how SpykeChyld looked at it (It's just a plot and was never carried out) or the person started to carry out the plot was only able to kill say 25 people...
I'm gonna say that number one is worse. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| both will get you life in prison......both are wrong. |
|
|
| Ekstasis |
What if you were writing a novel about a serial killer who killed 100 people. You would have to take the time to get into that characters head to figure out how they would go about it, and "methodicly plot" each killing.
So in theroy you would be "plotting" the killing of 100 people but not going threw with it.
I say actually killing someone is worse. There are lots of ways to think about something and not have any harm come of it. Its called fantasy. The best way to act out your deepest darkest feeling without actually hurting anyone. |
|
|
| OrZonE |
| First one is wayyyyy worse. The fact that you could've killed 100 ppl, the fact that you were capable of it, and that you wanted to do it deliberately. Thats worse than killing one person because of unknown circumstances. |
|
|
| skaborough fats |
It is wrong to kill. That is the supposition which makes either action 'wrong'. But what if the act of killing (in either case) is one which can be deemed as just (assassination of an evil dictator, execution of a serial killer, etc...). What if the first can be deemed right, what if the hundred people to be killed are all carriers of a plague, or are themselves contemplating an even more terrible act. To take this further, what if the murder in the second scenario is what prevents the first from taking place? So in either case murder isn't necessarily wrong. Followed through it could be argued that neither act is wrong if: The first act is to stop a terrorist plot, but will involve civilian (innocent) casualties, and the second act is committed to prevent the death of the innocents.
Now because in the first option the act of murder fails it could be argued that the crime is lessoned, and in our society our laws (a North American perspective here, I cannot speak for other nations out there) reflect this. Our laws also allow you to kill in self defense which is not an accident. So then in our society it is permissible, under certain circumstance, to kill. In the second example because there are no further details one could suppose that the act of killing was an accident, say a car accident. Then in that case the first act is far worse, despite the outcome of the second being more heinous. But neither example has details of the killer or killees, so let us suppose that in both case the victims are 'innocents'.
So my first statement of, "It is wrong to kill," should be amended to read, "It is wrong to kill in general, but there are exceptions." That means that it is all situational. Which leads to the answer that neither is worse than the other, unless the details of each is fully explained. That being said the question comes down to which is worse, intent or act.
Speaking in general terms then, that is without specific details of the event, action is worse than intention.
Cheers,
Fats |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| A is worse coz it means you're a screw up as well. |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| quote: | Originally posted by skaborough fats
It is wrong to kill. That is the supposition which makes either action 'wrong'. But what if the act of killing (in either case) is one which can be deemed as just (assassination of an evil dictator, execution of a serial killer, etc...). What if the first can be deemed right, what if the.............
Cheers,
Fats |
Dude, you're freaking deep. Nice one. Can anyone go deeper then that? |
|
|
| PhaseFour |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzyGreen
Dude, you're freaking deep. Nice one. Can anyone go deeper then that? |
:-p good topic, i need this for TOK next year heheh
ok, i feel really awkard...what does it mean to "fail"? does it mean, bullets missing the head and instead hitting the harm, etc? bleh
but right now (again, i feel really awkward), i would say that "a" would be more "moral", and i guess i would rather have that. i think this way because, 100 people is quite a large group (esp for sacramento hehe :)). If someone were to "fail", law enforcement would come, and that person would be arrested, and subject to the atrocities of ashcroft and bush. this will dovetail the assumption that the person who wanted these people dead is totally sick, and will do whatever possible to fulfill his goals to murder X # of people. thus, 100 more people saved.
killing or causing harm to people imo, is generally wrong. hehe fats stole alot of my response, but can someone clear up the definition of "fail" for me? thanks alot, hope i didnt say anything stupid ;) |
|
|
|
|
