- HALO 1 IS SOLID
- |
- Honorable Member
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
Posted by: HALO 1 IS SOLID
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?
In my opinion, they are. If they did absolutely nothing to stop the murder, that is the same thing as killing the person themselves. However, I did not say that it is lawfully the same thing. I believe in the benefit of the doubt, and unless you can prove with hard evidence that someone knew about the plot but did nothing against it, you shouldn't hold them responsible. You know, people do go to jail to being an accomplice, even if they didn't actively do anything.
I disagree on the basis that you are making presence morally unacceptable. if the viewer was not their the murderer would be at fault, if the murderer was not their no one would be at fault but you argue viewer becomes bad because bad person is their. in proportions you say the more people present the less at fault a murderer is. Also if you do stop the murderer you haven't done anything good as by your presence you eliminate his bad action. thus in this scenario you are either bad or neutral. How can you be bad without a good action in comparison. sorry for the convuluted content,