The ethics of killing the dead

Look, it's all very simple:

Mr. Bullseye isn't doing anything worse to Mr. Gravity than what Mr. G is doing to himself. Under the circumstances, then, why do we care that Mr. B takes advantage of the situation that is presented to him -- a situation that he did not create -- and does no more additional harm to Mr. G than what Mr. G was already going to do on his own?

If you have a beef with Agrote and his whole freely-available-child-pornography-does-no-additional-harm-so-why-not-enjoy-it meme, then go take it up with him.

Look, it's all very simple: Mr. Bullseye isn't doing anything worse to Mr. Gravity than what Mr. G is doing to himself. Under the circumstances, then, why do we care that Mr. B takes advantage of the situation that is presented to him -- a situation that he did not create -- and does no more additional harm to Mr. G than what Mr. G was already going to do on his own?

"The ethics of killing someone who is just moments away from being dead" wouldn't fit into a title.

40 floors of constant velocity as a function of time, versus (for example) 4 months, the order of events is the same.

Chumly wrote:

40 floors of constant velocity as a function of time, versus (for example) 4 months, the order of events is the same.

Hunh?

It's simple enough, since we are not immortal the degree of time differential between when Mr. Bullseye kills Mr. Gravity versus when Mr. Gravity's subsequent demise takes place is not relevant (unless or until the time differential becomes very small).

Why?

Because 40 floors of constant velocity is plenty of time between Mr. Bullseye killing Mr. Gravity and Mr. Gravity's subsequent demise.

Mr. Bullseye killed Mr. Gravity, thus Mr. Bullseye should be penalized based on the applicable societal notions.

40 floors of constant velocity as a function of time, versus (for example) 4 months, the order of events is the same.

joefromchicago wrote:

Chumly wrote:

40 floors of constant velocity as a function of time, versus (for example) 4 months, the order of events is the same.

Hunh?

The events are the same, in that Mr. Bullseye extinguished Mr. Gravity's life prior to some other event extinguishing Mr. Gravity's life in (for example) 4 months.

Are you unclear about the terminal velocity of a falling body?

My reasonable-enough-guess-timate was that terminal velocity would be reached within 60 floors (not 40 BTW).

Mr. Gravity's weight per se is not a function of his velocity, it's Mr. Gravity's surface area versus his mass given a constant of air resistance.

Yes, in this case, time is a function of whether terminal velocity can be reached as is distance.

In any case though, all that is needed is for Mr. Gravity to be falling fast enough to be killed at the time Mr. Bullseye kills Mr. Gravity, so you're barking up the wrong tree unless you are going to claim that after 60 floors (not 40 BTW) Mr. Gravity would not be falling fast enough to be killed.

My four month reference is not as to how long Mr. Gravity might be falling, it's to how long Mr. Gravity's life might last in another set of conditions.

Chumly wrote:

My reasonable-enough-guess-timate was that terminal velocity would be reached within 60 floors (not 40 BTW).

Here's what I wrote:

the notion of "40 floors of constant velocity:" given that Mr. G's weight is unknown, I don't know how you could arrive at the conclusion that he reaches terminal velocity as he passes the 40th floor

Now, if someone falls from the 100th floor and is just passing the 40th floor, that means that he has already fallen 60 floors. Most people -- excluding you, it seems -- would be able to figure that out. Unless, of course, you start counting floors from the top, in which case you might have a point. But then you'd also be retarded. Your choice.

Chumly wrote:

Mr. Gravity's weight per se is not a function of his velocity, it's Mr. Gravity's surface area versus his mass given a constant of air resistance.

All of which you also don't know.

Chumly wrote:

Yes, in this case, time is a function of whether terminal velocity can be reached as is distance.

Time is a function of whether terminal velocity can be reached as is distance? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Hell, it's not even grammatically correct.

Chumly wrote:

In any case though, all that is needed is for Mr. Gravity to be falling fast enough to be killed at the time Mr. Bullseye kills Mr. Gravity, so you're barking up the wrong tree unless you are going to claim that after 60 floors (not 40 BTW) Mr. Gravity would not be falling fast enough to be killed.

That makes even less sense.

Chumly wrote:

My four month reference is not as to how long Mr. Gravity might be falling, it's to how long Mr. Gravity's life might last in another set of conditions.

Why should that matter?

Typo: should read 40 not 60 as per "Mr. Gravity is shot dead just as he passes the 40th".

You're wrong, I do know Mr. Gravity's weight per se is not a function of his velocity, it's Mr. Gravity's surface area versus his mass given a constant of air resistance.

That you do not understand the function of time versus distance versus acceleration versus air resistance is your problem.

That you claim "That makes even less sense" is your problem.

You ask "Why should that matter?", we'll see if you can come to an understanding of time in the above context firstly.

Let us suppose that Mr. Bullseye is the sworn enemy of Mr. Gravity. Indeed, their enmity is so bitter and ineradicable that one day Mr. Bullseye determines to go to the penthouse home of Mr. Gravity and shoot him dead. On his way to this grim assignment, Mr. Bullseye (who has excellent vision) notes that Mr. Gravity is standing on a window ledge 100 stories above the ground. Mr. Gravity then jumps. He is, without a doubt, going to be killed -- there is no earthly chance that he might survive such a fall. Given that Mr. Gravity is, for all intents and purposes, a dead man, the quick-thinking Mr. Bullseye, not one to be so easily thwarted by fate, decides to fulfill his life's ambition and shoot Mr. Gravity. He takes aim and fires, and Mr. Gravity is shot dead just as he passes the 40th floor. His lifeless body then plummets the remaining distance and splatters upon the sidewalk below.

Now, was Mr. Bullseye wrong to shoot Mr. Gravity?

Of course it's ethically wrong.
For all he knows, the guy might really have had his heart set
on those last few moments that he derived him of.

Look, it's all very simple:
Mr. Bullseye isn't doing anything worse to Mr. Gravity than what Mr. G is
doing to himself. Under the circumstances, then, why do we care that
Mr. B takes advantage of the situation that is presented to him --
a situation that he did not create -- and does no more additional harm to
Mr. G than what Mr. G was already going to do on his own?

I suppose you could argue that shooting him was a mercy killing because the fall would be a more painful way to die. In that sense, maybe he wasn't wrong. From the story, it doesn't sound like that was Mr. Bullseye's intent. He wanted to be the one to cause Mr. Gravity's death. This is an act of revenge. Revenge is wrong.