11
   

The ethics of killing the dead

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:03 am
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?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:06 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Look, it's all very simple:

It is, but not in the way you seem to think.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.

Both positions are rationalizations.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 01:33 pm
DrewDad wrote:
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.

That, I am convinced, would be a complete waste of time.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 05:37 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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?


It's only simple if one is looking for an excuse.

Mr. B is trying to justify his unethical action. This reminds me of a teenager's "but-but-Jason-drank-more-than-I-did" argument. It's just another case of trying to avoid personal responsibility. Mr. B cannot excuse himself by trying to throw Mr. G's actions into the mix. Everybody has his own scorecard.

(Geez, two years of teaching highschoolers and look what a tightass I've turned into! Laughing )
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 05:52 pm
5 (five) pages of commentary in response to Joe's original TITLE.

Did anyone THINK of ANY previous prosecution, let alone conviction, for KILLING the DEAD?

And if NOT, then what on earth was this thread ABOUT, unless some weird fantasy of the original poster?

No, don't rush to reply, thinking is difficult for many of us, but discrimination and harassment are illegal.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 08:05 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
"The ethics of killing someone who is just moments away from being dead" wouldn't fit into a title.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 08:27 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 01:02 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:30 pm
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?

Are you unclear about a given human life's time-line always having the same net effect, that being death?
Chumly wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:52 pm
Chumly wrote:
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?

I have no problems with the terminal velocity of a falling body. I do, however, have a problem with: (1) 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; (2) the claim that terminal velocity of any object is "a function of time:" that makes no sense at all; and (3) the "order of events" being the same whether Mr. G fell for "40 floors of constant velocity as a function of time" (whatever the hell that means) or whether he fell for four months, which seems, at the very least, implausible. In comparison to these imponderables, the concept of terminal velocity is a piece of cake.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:14 pm
My reasonable-enough-guess-timate was that terminal velocity would be reached within 60 floors (not 40 BTW).

To be wholly accurate it's not Mr. Gravity's weight per se as a function of his velocity, it's Mr. Gravity's surface area versus his mass given a constant of air resistance and a constant of gravity as a function of his velocity.

Yep, 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.

Cheers!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:44 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:54 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:58 pm
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 10:08 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:51 am
Chumly wrote:
Typo: should read 40 not 60 as per "Mr. Gravity is shot dead just as he passes the 40th".

Typo? Whose typo? Certainly not mine.

Chumly wrote:
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.

And, as I pointed out, you don't know Mr. G's mass, his surface area, or the air resistance. Nor do you know the distance that he falls. But apart from all that, I suppose you still think you can make a pretty good guess about how fast he falls.

Chumly wrote:
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.

How can it be my problem if I don't care?

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

Very clever -- but you can't get me to give you free lessons this time, Chum. You'll have to figure that one out on your own.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 05:21 am
Re: The ethics of killing the dead
joefromchicago wrote:
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?

Yes.
He had no right to interfere.

If a man has a short time to live
that fact does not authorize anyone
to reduce the length of his life, nor
does it give him any right to inflict the pain of gunshot wounds upon his victim.

However, he gets credit for fine quality marksmanship.



David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 05:26 am
Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

I don 't KNOW,
but I 've heard tell
that free fall feels GOOD,
until u get to the end of it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 05:31 am
joefromchicago wrote:

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?

Because the life involved was Mr. G 's property, to freely do with
as HE chose; not any stranger.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 05:41 am
Swimpy wrote:
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.

I dispute that revenge is rong.
Can u PROVE what u have alleged ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 09:46:05