Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Poll [33 votes]: Killing vs. allowing to die
  • Poll [33 votes]: Killing vs. allowing to die
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Killing vs. allowing to die

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"

Poll: Killing vs. allowing to die  [closed]
they are the same:  33%
(11 Votes)
they are different:  67%
(22 Votes)
Total Votes: 33

is killing as equally condemable as allowing to be killed? Are kidnappers as responsible as unaware parents? Is allowing someone to drown the same as throwing them in?

[Edited on 12.16.2012 4:00 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 4:00 PM PDT

Batma let Ras die

  • 12.16.2012 4:01 PM PDT

Multi-trillionaire modern cowboy.

That's right.

I feel they're different, although it's fracked up either way. Unless deep karma and stuff.

  • 12.16.2012 4:01 PM PDT

Gather around the campfire, once it goes out, it's out for good.

No, they are not equal. But they are both rather bad.

  • 12.16.2012 4:01 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Hoc volo sic iubeo. Sit pro rationes voluntas." - Juvenal

"Scio me nihil scire." - Socrates


Posted by: Jesse Pinkman
Batma let Ras die

What about Batdad

  • 12.16.2012 4:02 PM PDT

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

If you're interested in Halo's music, check this out.

Posted by: x Foman123 x
Speaking of chuckles, let's all lol at IonicPaul, who makes friends with bugs to make up for his lack of human contact.

Posted by: eggsalad
No, they are not equal. But they are both rather bad.

Yeah, actively killing someone is worse than allowing someone to die, but not by very much (given that you have a good chance to save person who is dying).

  • 12.16.2012 4:02 PM PDT

Covan was here, December 20th.

Come back later, after he's out of Parris Island.

Oooh, snap. I take back what I said.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 4:07 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 4:03 PM PDT

Depends on the scenario.

  • 12.16.2012 4:03 PM PDT

They're the same.

  • 12.16.2012 4:03 PM PDT

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"

A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?

  • 12.16.2012 4:05 PM PDT

One is murder, the other is criminally negligible manslaughter. Manslaughter generally has less severe punishments, so it would be less condemnable from a legal standpoint.

  • 12.16.2012 4:05 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Hoc volo sic iubeo. Sit pro rationes voluntas." - Juvenal

"Scio me nihil scire." - Socrates


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?
Kill one of course.

  • 12.16.2012 4:06 PM PDT

Multi-trillionaire modern cowboy.

That's right.


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?

Kill, but then you're just saving people. That brings up other morals.

  • 12.16.2012 4:06 PM PDT

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.

Depends on the context.

  • 12.16.2012 4:07 PM PDT

Proud member of the Herd


Posted by: eggsalad
No, they are not equal. But they are both rather bad.

  • 12.16.2012 4:07 PM PDT

Gather around the campfire, once it goes out, it's out for good.


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?
One life < 5 lives.
A better question would be one on both tracks, most will say leave the track be.

  • 12.16.2012 4:07 PM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.


Posted by: Terror Q

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?

Kill, but then you're just saving people. That brings up other morals.


How does saving 5 people bring up other morals?

  • 12.16.2012 4:08 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Even if you didn't initially cause someone to be in danger, if you don't do anything to save them, it's the same as killing them. Well, unless of course there wasn't anything you could do, but if you have an obvious chance to save someone, you basically kill them. However, in the eyes of the law, only the killer should be held responsible because there's always doubt about what someone could or could not have done.

  • 12.16.2012 4:08 PM PDT

Mreh.

They're different.
The person committing the crime is directly responsible, they had the chance to not perform the action considered criminal. The bystander only has the potential to stop the action, and it often comes with personal risk.

For example, I was in a store and a man with a gun came in, pointed it at a cashier and demanded money. I was close enough attack him, but I was unarmed and he had a gun. He could very easily shoot me, or miss and kill someone else. I decided to not get involved for my safety and for the safety of others. Should I get arrested for his charges because I did not try to stop the crime in progress despite having the potential to do so?

  • 12.16.2012 4:08 PM PDT

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"


Posted by: Ankrow

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?
Kill one of course.


but now you are the killer. before the event you had done nothing wrong and after the event you have done nothing wrong if you allow the train to run. By changing the track you become a murderer which the poll suggests is worse.

  • 12.16.2012 4:09 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Hoc volo sic iubeo. Sit pro rationes voluntas." - Juvenal

"Scio me nihil scire." - Socrates


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID

Posted by: Ankrow

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?
Kill one of course.


but now you are the killer. before the event you had done nothing wrong and after the event you have done nothing wrong if you allow the train to run. By changing the track you become a murderer which the poll suggests is worse.
So be it. I'm the murderer who saved 5 men.

  • 12.16.2012 4:09 PM PDT

Multi-trillionaire modern cowboy.

That's right.


Posted by: culexus

Posted by: Terror Q

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?

Kill, but then you're just saving people. That brings up other morals.


How does saving 5 people bring up other morals?
Letting one die instead of five is just logic. The one guy on each track one is a good one. I'd let someone die.

  • 12.16.2012 4:10 PM PDT

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Even if you didn't initially cause someone to be in danger, if you don't do anything to save them, it's the same as killing them. Well, unless of course there wasn't anything you could do, but if you have an obvious chance to save someone, you basically kill them. However, in the eyes of the law, only the killer should be held responsible because there's always doubt about what someone could or could not have done.


take a case of murder which someone doesn't stop. Is the person who didn't act as bad as the murderer?

  • 12.16.2012 4:11 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?


I wouldn't choose to commit murder.

  • 12.16.2012 4:11 PM PDT

Its not my actions that define me, but under what light I'm being looked upon.


Me after a physics lecture "So what you're saying is, non of it actually exists"
Yellow box "and I thought we were crazy"


Posted by: Ankrow

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID

Posted by: Ankrow

Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
A track lays under a bridge. Ahead the track splits in two. on its current path the train shoots along towards five people stuck on the track, all will die. on the other track is one person who will die if the track is switched. Do you kill the one man or allow the five to die?
Kill one of course.


but now you are the killer. before the event you had done nothing wrong and after the event you have done nothing wrong if you allow the train to run. By changing the track you become a murderer which the poll suggests is worse.
So be it. I'm the murderer who saved 5 men.


so what did you vote?

  • 12.16.2012 4:12 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2