UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> if you saw a guy on the street...


5/10/05 6:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jspencer
10 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-May-05
Member Since: 06/24/2003
Posts: 269
 
and he was dying of thirst and you didnt get him any water, and he died...did you murder him?
5/11/05 3:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DyingBreed
16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-May-05
Member Since: 01/18/2003
Posts: 12269
nope it was thirst that killed him
5/14/05 11:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-May-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14803
It depends. But there is astrong case that you did murder him.
5/17/05 2:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DamirioN
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-May-05
Member Since: 08/06/2003
Posts: 1780
It's not possible to give water to everyone who is in need of it. Does that mean you're responsible for the murder of every person who has died of dehydration? Or is it all about the proximity to the person who died? ps. I had no water, so I gave him all of the water that I had.
8/10/05 6:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SambokneeMachine
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Aug-05
Member Since: 07/20/2004
Posts: 53
i think unemployment killed him
8/11/05 7:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Subadie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Aug-05
Member Since: 10/09/2004
Posts: 183
If, unbeknownst to him, he had a full water bottle on his back, but you did not tell him because you wanted to take the Gracies In Action III DVD he had on him. Then he died of thirst, did you kill him ?
8/11/05 7:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Aug-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 690
you have to define murder. I don't know the law's definition.
2/2/06 11:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dragoon
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-06
Member Since: 11/19/2004
Posts: 59
^ I read(dont know how true it is) that you don't have to help somebody who is being beaten, shot, stabbed, etc so would this case be any different?
2/3/06 9:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wynthoperia
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Feb-06
Member Since: 10/18/2005
Posts: 10
That's a tough question and depends on several things 1)did you know that the guy was dying of thirst 2)did you have any water/were you in a position to help him? if the answer is no to either of those questions you're aight. If you knew he was dying and were in a position to help him and didn't then yes, you're morally responsible for his death
2/11/06 5:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jenny
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8913
ah, legal moralism. i think not, but it is perhaps arguable whether one has a duty to care for a stranger in need. for my money, and assuming i was aware of this "need", my failure to act is wrong independently of the criminal law. the law distinguishes between those who happened to be present when another died and those who have contributed to the death in a way that makes them criminally rather than merely morally responsible.
2/20/06 2:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
scaf
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Feb-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 337
it wouldnt count if he was a 300lb redheaded texan
2/24/06 6:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Cabal1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-06
Member Since: 06/03/2002
Posts: 7400
I agree with sanguine cynic, this is a legal question, isn't it? Murder is a legal term.
3/14/06 4:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kickarse
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-06
Member Since: 08/28/2002
Posts: 43
He killed himself by not bringing enough water to drink. Self inflicted wound be a poor planning and lack of preperation. Why didnt he go to the park and drink the free water there? What if he spent all his money on beer? What if he is thirty because he just beat to people to death with a rock? What if is was Hitler? What if, what if...............
6/10/06 12:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
AlabamaSmooth
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jun-06
Member Since: 03/20/2002
Posts: 203
Is it not a form of evil to let evil occur when one could have reasonably and in this case easily prevented it?
6/10/06 11:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
The Objectivist
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jun-06
Member Since: 06/25/2005
Posts: 87
No. You do not owe anyone anything.
10/8/06 11:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
amorphous
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Oct-06
Member Since: 10/26/2003
Posts: 7183
"No. You do not owe anyone anything." Objectivists are such morons. If I see you dying of thirst I will tell you to go fuck yourself.
10/13/06 12:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Oct-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13396
"If I see you dying of thirst I will tell you to go fuck yourself." just to prove his point, or what? ;-)
10/15/06 5:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
amorphous
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Oct-06
Member Since: 10/26/2003
Posts: 7205
No, simply because he thinks that way. If it were anyone else I'd gladly share.
10/20/06 3:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Elfnut
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Oct-06
Member Since: 06/04/2004
Posts: 70
he died from alcoholism.
10/21/06 9:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kane Trojan
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Oct-06
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 1063
If you give him too much water, that could kill him too!! Faster than not giving water, if you do that, did you murder him?
10/29/06 1:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BjjSchoolGirl
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Oct-06 01:54 AM
Member Since: 10/09/2006
Posts: 64
Hiya all, 'Murder', by definition, is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought, by a person who is of the age of discretion (10 years old or over), and of sound mind. For a person to be found guilty of murder there are a number of principles of criminal liability which must be proven. These include: 'The killing was unlawful' (this distinguished murder from lawful killing, such as a soldier killing someone during battle or the application of the death penalty where capital punishment is legal), 'The accused person was a person over the age of discretion' (murder can only be carried out by a person that must be 10 years old or over at the time of committing the crime), 'the victim and accused must be a human being' (for murder to be proven both must be human, not an animal), 'the accused is of sound mind 'to be murder, the person committing the crime must be sane at the time of committing the act), 'the victims death was caused by the accused' (there must be a direct casual link between the action of the accused and the death of the victim), and 'malice aforethought existed' ( the intention to kill, an intention to assault a person who was trying to make a lawful arrest which resulted in there death, an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, or reckless indifference). Lawfully, I don't think not giving a man dying of thirst a drink constitutes as murder because there's not enough strength in the accused being responsible for his death. The casual chain of causation (responsiblity for the death) would be difficult to linked between you and the dead man. But who knows these days? The things that get decided in courts! Everyone plays the blame game, and everyone wants to blame others for all of life's mistakes or problems...no matter how ridiculous or farfetched that allegation is! But in this situation, 'morally' would be a different matter... And yes, I agree. This sounds like more of a topic for the LegalGround Forum ;-) Cheers, Maryanne.
10/29/06 3:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Oct-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1431
I don´t think its a legal question at all. Murder is not a strictly legal concept (I doubt whether there are any). The legal concept of murder has its basis in both morality and the folk concept of murder so it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the described act would constitute a murder in the folk concept sense of murder. And that is why the original question was posed.
10/29/06 4:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BjjSchoolGirl
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Oct-06
Member Since: 10/09/2006
Posts: 69
Looking back on it now, it does seem like my post goes on a bit. I suppose I just got excited that stuff I learned in legal studies this year might actually come in handy for me in the real world :-) But I though murder and manslaughter were legal concepts. If there was no laws against it, wouldn't it just be classified as killing somebody? Laws and social values/attitudes make killing wrong, and so classify it as a legal term, 'murder'. Animals can't murder, but they can kill. And I doubt there are animals out there that think killing is wrong and unacceptable, it's just part of life and survival. But I do see that your right...suppose it can go in both forums (philosophy and legal). Cheers, Maryanne.
10/29/06 6:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gorgeous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Oct-06
Member Since: 06/14/2002
Posts: 8387
Evil happens when good people do nothing.
10/29/06 7:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BjjSchoolGirl
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Oct-06 07:58 AM
Member Since: 10/09/2006
Posts: 73
That's true too, from a moral perspective. A legal view point it may be different (e.g. not to blame). But I think I prefer the moral perspective better...makes people think about and be more responsible for their actions.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.