Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by sakinago, Apr 21, 2017.
I got laid so many times to this song
OK, no one else will play so I will.
In the first scenario I would switch tracks. The reason is that the value of five lives is greater than that of one life, all other things being equal. Before you attempt to argue that I intentionally killed a man let me remind you that my intent was to kill no one; however, I was not given that option. Under the law I am not guilty of any crime because I did not possess the necessary mens rea (state of mind) to demonstrate criminal intent.
In the second scenario, I would not push an innocent person unto the tracks. Such an act would constitute murder. There are no exceptions within the criminal law which would allow an individual to kill an innocent person to prevent the accidental death of another. Besides, the obvious question would be: Rather than throw an innocent victim to his/her death, why didn't YOU jump on the train?
The two scenarios are not the same. In the first, I have no choice but to allow people to die. The only decision is whether to allow five people to die or only one. In the second, I do have a choice. I can allow the accident to happen; I can commit murder by pushing an innocent victim to his/her death or I can jump on the train myself. I have no right to kill an innocent person to prevent a fatal accident. If taking a life is worth saving five people then that life must be my own
Now I have one for you to consider. It is a moral/legal issue that was discussed when I was in law school. It was known as the Spelunkers” case and here is how Wikipedia describes it:
“The case involves five explorers who are caved in following a landslide. They learn via intermittent radio contact that, without food, they are likely to starve to death before they can be rescued. They decide that someone should be killed and eaten so that the others may survive. They decide who should be killed by throwing a pair of dice. After the four survivors are rescued, they are charged and found guilty of the murder of the fifth explorer. If their appeal to the Supreme Court of Newgarth fails, they face a mandatory death sentence. Although the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is intense public pressure for the men to avoid facing the death penalty.
“The article offers five possible judicial responses. Each differs in its reasoning and on whether the survivors should be found guilty of breaching the law. Two judges affirm the convictions, emphasising the importance of the separation of powers and literal approach to statutory interpretation. Two other judges overturn the convictions; one focuses on "common sense" and the popular will while the other uses arguments drawn from the natural law tradition, emphasizing the purposive approach. A fifth judge, who is unable to reach a conclusion, recuses himself. As the Court's decision is a tie, the original convictions are upheld and the men are sentenced to death”
The Case of the Speluncean Explorers - Wikipedia
NOTE: Wikipedia does not mention one fact of Spelunkers case that we discussed in law school. Several days after the dice were thrown, the loser reneged and made it clear he did not want to be killed. He was killed anyway
Do what I would do launch on the brakes and throw it to the right
I will take my own life before others
It's not fair it's not right
I hear ya!!! Music was was badass in those days!!!!!
But I do admit pentanox can play
Love Radioactive !!!!!
Check her out in round table
Separate names with a comma.