The Cull.

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.

Re: The Cull.

Postby Packbat » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:43 am

I don't know if there is a technical term for "defense of others", but the same comic luislsacc linked above had an example in the self-defense chapter.

Just for the record.
User avatar
Packbat
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Three or four boxes downstream of the Interwebs

Re: The Cull.

Postby Alex Starkiller » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:51 am

Packbat wrote:I don't know if there is a technical term for "defense of others", but the same comic luislsacc linked above had an example in the self-defense chapter.

Just for the record.

My situation is different than that. No one is in immediate danger, it's just that the man in question is definitely a horrible individual, and will very likely do horrible things in the near enough future. Though, I suppose it's not certain he will, but like I said, it's very likely.
Down dirty bitches, becoming the witches
Grindin' up and down 'cause they grantin' all my wishes
Bring out all my aces like this game was Poker
Banish all the witches, thank you based Madoka!
"Ante Up" - ForeverPandering
User avatar
Alex Starkiller
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Mitakihara Town, making all sorts of contracts

Re: The Cull.

Postby MysticWav » Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:57 am

As to other circumstances that would justify killing another, there's plenty of them. Out of lawful necessity, and here's a way too complicated example:
Person A is driving their car responsibly. When driving downhill , with a cliff to their right and in front ( there's a unreasonably sharp turn to the left), they are unable to stop their car because of an oil spill on the road from a truck that whose hose malfunctioned and was tracking oil. Person A can either turn their car left, and hit Person B, turn it right or keep it going forward, and go off a cliff ( at their speed, it is clear that trying to make the turn would be impossible, and it is also clear that they cannot reduce their speed sufficiently). Jumping out of the car is impossible in time ( though I doubt the person would have thought of it anyway). I'm sure there are other ways of escaping the situation that someone with enough imagination can think of, but let's say they're unavailable for some reason. In this situation then, the coices are to kill a person or suicide. In my country, it is unreasonable to ask people to commit suicide, therefore the choice that ends with the death of Person B is "forgiven" by law, so it's one more situation where killing someone is acceptable.


Your country sounds a little sociopathic. Are there any limits at all? What if instead of Person B it's Crowd B?

It all seems like an unworkable moral system. (Yes, I am American.)
User avatar
MysticWav
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: The Cull.

Postby Packbat » Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:31 pm

Alex Starkiller wrote:
Packbat wrote:I don't know if there is a technical term for "defense of others", but the same comic luislsacc linked above had an example in the self-defense chapter.

Just for the record.

My situation is different than that. No one is in immediate danger, it's just that the man in question is definitely a horrible individual, and will very likely do horrible things in the near enough future. Though, I suppose it's not certain he will, but like I said, it's very likely.

Ah, so the example immediately following, then.
User avatar
Packbat
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Three or four boxes downstream of the Interwebs

Re: The Cull.

Postby Alex Starkiller » Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:38 pm

Similar. The difference being the police/law enforcement either will not find him, or will find him too late. Which is a pretty big difference, considering the moral of that situation.
Down dirty bitches, becoming the witches
Grindin' up and down 'cause they grantin' all my wishes
Bring out all my aces like this game was Poker
Banish all the witches, thank you based Madoka!
"Ante Up" - ForeverPandering
User avatar
Alex Starkiller
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Mitakihara Town, making all sorts of contracts

Re: The Cull.

Postby RyukaTana » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:15 pm

MysticWav wrote:
As to other circumstances that would justify killing another, there's plenty of them. Out of lawful necessity, and here's a way too complicated example:
Person A is driving their car responsibly. When driving downhill , with a cliff to their right and in front ( there's a unreasonably sharp turn to the left), they are unable to stop their car because of an oil spill on the road from a truck that whose hose malfunctioned and was tracking oil. Person A can either turn their car left, and hit Person B, turn it right or keep it going forward, and go off a cliff ( at their speed, it is clear that trying to make the turn would be impossible, and it is also clear that they cannot reduce their speed sufficiently). Jumping out of the car is impossible in time ( though I doubt the person would have thought of it anyway). I'm sure there are other ways of escaping the situation that someone with enough imagination can think of, but let's say they're unavailable for some reason. In this situation then, the coices are to kill a person or suicide. In my country, it is unreasonable to ask people to commit suicide, therefore the choice that ends with the death of Person B is "forgiven" by law, so it's one more situation where killing someone is acceptable.


Your country sounds a little sociopathic. Are there any limits at all? What if instead of Person B it's Crowd B?

It all seems like an unworkable moral system. (Yes, I am American.)


It's sociopathic to expect someone to make a decision that will save themselves over a stranger or even a group of strangers? Especially given how quickly this all needs to be happening for one to be incapable of stopping in time...

Man, I'm glad said circumstances are extremely improbable. People are just too stupid to make judgment calls on these sorts of things...
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: The Cull.

Postby Alex Starkiller » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:50 pm

I mean, an argument could situationally be made towards it being egotistical, given certain thought processes going through someone's head. Even then, such a decision would be made in an instant, likely driven by panic, so one cannot reasonably call a person sociopathic for choosing to save themself. [Sorry, this is once again phrased poorly. I hope the meaning is clear at least.]
Down dirty bitches, becoming the witches
Grindin' up and down 'cause they grantin' all my wishes
Bring out all my aces like this game was Poker
Banish all the witches, thank you based Madoka!
"Ante Up" - ForeverPandering
User avatar
Alex Starkiller
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Mitakihara Town, making all sorts of contracts

Re: The Cull.

Postby luislsacc » Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:47 am

MysticWav wrote:
As to other circumstances that would justify killing another, there's plenty of them. Out of lawful necessity, and here's a way too complicated example:
Person A is driving their car responsibly. When driving downhill , with a cliff to their right and in front ( there's a unreasonably sharp turn to the left), they are unable to stop their car because of an oil spill on the road from a truck that whose hose malfunctioned and was tracking oil. Person A can either turn their car left, and hit Person B, turn it right or keep it going forward, and go off a cliff ( at their speed, it is clear that trying to make the turn would be impossible, and it is also clear that they cannot reduce their speed sufficiently). Jumping out of the car is impossible in time ( though I doubt the person would have thought of it anyway). I'm sure there are other ways of escaping the situation that someone with enough imagination can think of, but let's say they're unavailable for some reason. In this situation then, the coices are to kill a person or suicide. In my country, it is unreasonable to ask people to commit suicide, therefore the choice that ends with the death of Person B is "forgiven" by law, so it's one more situation where killing someone is acceptable.


Your country sounds a little sociopathic. Are there any limits at all? What if instead of Person B it's Crowd B?

It all seems like an unworkable moral system. (Yes, I am American.)


While I believe I understand what you meant, and my will to discuss semantics exists but not to the point to overtake this conversation, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "sociopathic": "(...) of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder (...)" and of course, here's the definition for antisocial: "(...) averse to the society of others (...) hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm(...)" A country's laws are ( in most places, they should be in others) a reflection of the country's societal values and ethics. This is the case in regards to case of necessity law in my country, therefore the law isn't sociopathic, and of course it is impossible for a country to be sociopathic ( unless you want to qualify the International Community as a society, which it is, but very few things pass as sociopathy there, much less this).

In regards to limits, this is an extreme and unlikely situation, but there is no reason a person shouldn't be able to take the measures necessary to safeguard their life when the immediate danger to them doesn't result from their own unlawfullness. So I'd say driving into Crowd B would be forgiven. It is interesting how the idea that a man wouldn't choose suicide over killing others is appaling to people over in the U.S.A., where the idea that a man must do such a thing seems appaling to people here. I will say once again - there's a reason why some people are heroes, and not just ordinary folk. To say that you're either a hero or a villain is a false dichotomy ( which reminds me of Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, and how if people on Gotham weren't so overly dramatic about everything things might have turned out much different from what they did).

In regards to the system being unworkable, these are extreme situations that almost never happen. In most situations we're pretty similar to what seems to me to happen in the U.S.A.

I'm sorry if I'm being overbearing, but if I didn't mention this before I am a law student and these issues are extremely interesting to me.
luislsacc
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:05 pm

Re: The Cull.

Postby MysticWav » Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:29 pm

I was working off the dictionary.com defintion with the bolded words being the particular aspect I was trying to evoke.
so·ci·o·path
[soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]

noun Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I think you have it framed entirely wrong. It's not a choice of suicide or killing it's a matter of what you are entitled to do in certain pursuits. I think you would probably agree in a lot of other analagous cases that there are limits to the pursuits of other goals when they harm others. If your goal is to become wealthy, and through no fault of your own the only practical path is to steal someone elses wealth, we do not consider that justified. That is theft even though we'd otherwise love for you to be wealthy. If your goal is to have sex, and through no fault of your own, the only practical path is to physicall force someone, we do not consider that justified. It is rape, even though we'd love for you to be able to have sex. If your goal is to live, and through no fault of your own, the only way to accomplish that is to take life from one or more other people, we do not consider that justified. That is murder even if we'd love for you to continue living. It's just an extension of the common saying that your right to swing your fist ends just shy of someone else's nose.

If you were dieing of organ failure, I can't imagine any country would justify morally legally going out and killing a compatible donor. How is this any different? This is a my life vs your life situation that, while not extremely common, does show up outside of extreme hypotheticals on a day to day basis.

Now naturally some situations unfold quickly and judgements of the outcomes will be imperfect and someone won't be held accountable for that. You might swerve before realizing Person B is there, and I don't think you'd be held accountable all other things not being your fault. But that's not the principle we're trying to discuss with the hypothetical, is it?

What is your country, btw?

Edit: Btw you're not coming across as overbearing at all. I enjoy the discussion. Similarly I hope I'm not coming across as insulting even though I'm tossing terms like sociopath around. :)
User avatar
MysticWav
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: The Cull.

Postby crayzz » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:26 pm

I'm pretty sure Alex got it right above.

The example given was a split second decision; it was a primal reaction. There's a huge difference between reacting in fear while about to fly off a cliff and planning the murder of another. One is held accountable for the latter, not the former.
crayzz
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:34 am

PreviousNext

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron