Logic and morality ?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> Logic and morality ?? (11/29/2010 10:00:44 PM)

I wrote this in another thread and I wanted to bring it up separately so as not to hijack.

"A long time ago, judgement was predicated on results of actions, later on the actions themselves, and now on the intent of those actions."

A very general statement, even for me. But it seems pretty much true. I am not just talking about law but also how we all judge one another. Our personal judgements are not really all that far removed from what the "leaders" do when it comes to law. It's been said that we have traded freedom for security, an idea which is patently false. This makes it seem undesirable to "evolve" in this way.

So then let's take a recent case, that of an Oregon teen of Arab descent who, with the help of our agents planted a fake bomb. They went all the way with it and it's pretty much given that he would've done it because he in fact, did detonate the [fake] bomb. Now I have friends and family out there and bombs going off in my country just,,,,,,, ain't cool with me.

I am aware that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and that's why I ask. What do you think ? And is it totally the fight between might and right ? Or is it maybe that we are all responding to our environment, and nothing more ? That we are inherently plagued with divisiveness and [perhaps] overactive competitve spirit rather than being a truly bad seed ?

If it's going to come down to motives, there will be alot more tougher questions to answer, but the same os true if results are judged rather than intent. Then there is the gray area of negligence.

It would be better off if we all had ten square miles on which to live, at least. That could approach true freedom, maybe.

But the burning question is, which is more important, the intent or the result ?

T



gungadin09 -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/29/2010 10:24:05 PM)

i'm not sure if i understand You. Are You saying that the people who planted the fake bomb should be prosecuted because there are copycat bombs? That even though their intent was to plant a fake bomb, that since their actions resulted in real bombings, that they should be held responsible?

Or, are You saying that their intent was to detonate a real bomb, it just got switched with a fake one?

Sorry, i haven't been following the news very closely.

pam



Termyn8or -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/29/2010 10:55:16 PM)

No, the would be terrorist found supposed accomplices, but they were FBI. They hooked him up with the "explosives" which were of course duds. (if you remember they did the same thing in 1991 concerning the first attemp to bomb the WTC, but that time they gave up some explosives, just not as much as the guy wanted)

They played the scene until the kid actually pushed the button. Then they swooped in and arrested him. This was of course to prove intent. That he would go through with it.

Thus the question of result rather than intent. There was no result, nobody got hurt. But I don't think we want this guy running around, he might find some real "dudes" and actually pull it off. But then when it comes to freedom, what do we want ? An accident is an accident and indeed they are all caused. But where exactly is the line that delineates between incompetence/negligence and true malice ?

And should that be a factor? I guess it should, but exactly how should that be implemented ?

You are driving a car, you black out. You did not drink, but it is found that maybe you're diabetic or epileptic, or just damn tired from saving babies from a burning bulding, whatever. In another case let's say you drank too much, and shit happened. It does. But then there is another case where you intentionally intended to kill someone. In any instance the result is the same. Would it be right to judge solely on the result then ?

But then if someone, say a kid, inadvertently causes the untimely and unpleasant deaths of several (or more) people ? Do you judge this kid with the same criteria as the would be bomber ?

There are more questions than answers.

T



Elisabella -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/29/2010 11:20:57 PM)

The two are separate, which is why there's a distinction between murder and manslaughter, as well as criminal charges for "conspiracy to commit..." even if the actual crime doesn't happen.



gungadin09 -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/29/2010 11:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, the would be terrorist found supposed accomplices, but they were FBI. They hooked him up with the "explosives" which were of course duds.

They played the scene until the kid actually pushed the button. Then they swooped in and arrested him. This was of course to prove intent. That he would go through with it. Thus the question of result rather than intent.
i would think they would prosecute him for "conspiracy to bomb" or whatever, the way that people are prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit murder". It is still a crime, no?

And should that be a factor?
i think it should be a factor. Conspiracy to bomb (or murder, whatever...) should be punished more lightly than murder itself. Not MUCH more lightly, but more lightly. It does matter whether or not the crime that was planned actually took place.

You are driving a car, you black out. You did not drink, but it is found that maybe you're diabetic or epileptic, or just damn tired from saving babies from a burning bulding, whatever.
That is an accident. Depending on the circumstances, the person might be charged with negligent homicide, if it could be proven that the accident was preventable if the person had excercised reasonable caution.

In another case let's say you drank too much, and shit happened. It does.
Drunk driving is negligent behavior, and should be punished as such. It is fair to expect a person to understand that driving drunk increases the chances of an accident. Thus, when someone chooses to do that, they are choosing to engage in risky behavior, with a full knowledge of what the risks are beforehand. So, if shit happens, it's not purely accidental. The bad result could have been prevented if the person responsible had excercised reasonable caution.

But then there is another case where you intentionally intended to kill someone.
That is a much more serious crime, and the punishment should reflect that.

But then if someone, say a kid, inadvertently causes the untimely and unpleasant deaths of several (or more) people ? Do you judge this kid with the same criteria as the would be bomber ?
No, i would judge them the same as in the first question of accidental homicide. i would also make allowances depending on how old the kid was. If a five year old shoots someone, he should not be punished because he's not old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. i believe that the law (as i understand it) is right. A person's actions should be judged differently according to their INTENT to commit a crime. In other words, whether what happened was completely accidental, partly accidental, or done on purpose, as well as how conscious they were of the fact that they were doing wrong.

There are more questions than answers.
In my opinion, the examples You have given are fairly clear cut. All things being equal, i would have no problem doling out one punishment for person A, another for person B, and another for person C. i think that the question gets stickier, gets much harder to judge, when you start taking into account the fact that "all things" are NOT equal for most people. Socio-economic status, upbringing, education, intelligence, personality, age, mental or physical illness, and a hundred other factors, including pure dumb luck, also play a role. If You ask, how much of an allowance should be made for those factors? Well, that's a debate that could go on for ages.

pam

T




gungadin09 -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 12:26:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No, the would be terrorist found supposed accomplices, but they were FBI. They hooked him up with the "explosives" which were of course duds. (if you remember they did the same thing in 1991 concerning the first attemp to bomb the WTC, but that time they gave up some explosives, just not as much as the guy wanted)



It would be interesting to try to determine the degree of these people's guilt, the ones who "sold him explosives, but not as much as he wanted..."

pam




subkatslut -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 2:01:31 AM)

I think gungadin sums it up pretty well in that many things are clearcut and certainly in the examples you gave.

Intent imo is definitely the biggest factor with the ensuing result determining the severity perhaps of the punishment. Why? Because regardless of the result the perpetrator just f'd up and will do it again only with a better success rate.



LaTigresse -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 4:39:55 AM)

Intent and outcome. I cannot say either is more important.......unless I, or someone I love, is the victim of the outcome. See how that works?

Joe Smith was at the bar playing cards. He didn't intend to drink so much, he didn't intend to spend his rent money playing cards, he didn't intend to leave his wife and children penniless by not having life insurance, he didn't intend to swerve across the center line and kill that sweet young couple from down the road. Yet, does that make the outcome any less agonizing?

Forget intent and consider personal responsibility. A responsible Joe Smith wouldn't blow the rent money, get behind the wheel of a truck intoxicated, would have some life insurance, etc etc etc...

If grown adults cannot be responsible, and because of that lack of personal responsibility, cause harm to innocent parties, fuck intent.



tazzygirl -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 5:01:08 AM)

I think you can argue intent if he sat in a bar and drank too much, with the keys in his pocket.



barelynangel -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 5:01:46 AM)

~FR~ There are different levels of felonies people can be charged with.  They do have crimes that are considered less of a felony than others, there are classes of felonies.  The difference in this case is this person is being charged i believe with regard to terrorist actions not just general crimes, so even for the most basic offence the tacking on of the terrorist action will bump up all the crimes to a different class concept of the charge, just like if someone gets charged with assault but the hate crime is tacked on. 

As far as the FBI's participation, its the same concept applied to undercover cops who set up drug deals or prostitution busts, illegal gun trafficing, slavery rings etc or use a concept of bait to "arrest the bad guys"  All this participation was, was on a different scale.  They didn't actually give him a bomb, but HE believed he had a real bomb and he intended to use it for the purpose of causing harm to a vast number of people.  What is making this "more" is the terrorist charges. 

If you are driving a car and you black out and kill someone in the accident, you may be charged with a crime. It depends on the circumstances. As for drunk driving, in this day and age, there is a reasonable degree of knowledge that it is illegal to drink while driving.  While the law has a limit, you don't need to have reached the limit to be charged with manslaughter because by even being under the limit, your actions and decision to drink and drive no matter how much you have had did in fact impair you and it can be reasonably determined that your actions while not deliberate did cause the death of another. 

angel



LaTigresse -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (11/30/2010 12:17:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I think you can argue intent if he sat in a bar and drank too much, with the keys in his pocket.


Perhaps. Although most people I've known that have drank more than they should have, and then driven, sincerely believed at the time they were fine to drive.

It's no different than my youngest sister being adamant that she can text and drive just fine. Her intent would never be to veer into oncoming traffic and kill someone, but it could happen.



Termyn8or -> RE: Logic and morality ?? (12/1/2010 5:00:19 PM)

Using FR

I avoided this next example(s) because I didn't want the opinions adulterated. Yet (I guess). It seems we all agree that neither extreme is appropriate.

Now we have hate crimes.

That means if I defend myself against a robber or whatever, an attacker, if I use a racial slur while vanquishing the assailant I can be charged with a hate crime. It alludes to intent in a way, but it does not prove it. However we know how wonderful the just us system is.

The DUI situation is ridiculous IMO. In the previous example, the perpetrator was at fault. Let's put it another way. You're on your way home from the bar. Whether or not you really had one (or six) too many "for the road" is not at issue. You are stopped at a red light and get rearended. The one who rearended you has not had a drink, however if they don't notice a red light AND a car sitting behind it, they are obviously impaired somehow. Maybe not intoxicated, maybe not on drugs, just either stupid or something.

In the case of DUI, intent is somewhat measurable. Not in other cases.

Say some pedophile is hunting for prey. If he's looking for girls, you catch wind of it and stop him in a most unpleasant way. If he's looking for boys, and while embedding a strong aversion to his behavior you call him a f_____. You can be charged with a hate crime.

How about this now : I have this assailant, and I vanquish him within an inch of his life. He is an Amero-Polak heterosexual like me. In the process I declare that (right out) I am going to stomp him real good because he is such a discredit to MY kind ? Do hate crime laws apply to that ?

So there is a big problem judging solely by result, that is clear. However one huge problem with judging by intent is that in many cases it is hard to really prove.

In my kitchen I have a couple of nooses draped across a Confederate flag. So if a Black robber tries to rob my Mother, and I blow his head off, is that a hate crime ? How can I prove it's not. Just for the record it wouldn't be, or is that bigoted because anyone other than Mom is not my Mom. Different.

Where do we draw the line. The Amero-Polak heterosexual robber would meet the same fate. How would I prove THAT ?

T



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125