Morality... is there a difference

[Draconian Guppy]

Is there a difference...

Scenario #1

Say there's a town of 500 who drink water out of one well.

Along comes a mass murderer and poisons the well and kills 200 people who drink that water...

 

Scenario #2

Same town, well and people.

 

Along comes Daisy Duke and mistakenly used a container that previously had been used for a toxic substance, as consequence the well is now poisoned and when 200 folk consume the water, they die too.

 

 

Now, for you, neowinians, what is your stand, is there a difference on how person #1 should be treated to in comparison to person #2?   NOT COUNTING your local/national laws, but how you stand in your sense of morality in terms of what you think is right or wrong?

[FiB3R]

Is Daisy hot, i.e. the Daisy Duke?

[Draconian Guppy]

1 minute ago, FiB3R said:

Is Daisy hot?

lol, how was I not expecting this...

[DConnell Member]

I would say that while Daisy should have some consequences for her negligence, she should get off a lot lighter than the mass murderer who killed his 100 deliberately. Intent does matter, though it does not change the result. I'd say that Daisy should have to do something positive to ameliorate the results of her actions, while the deliberate murderer should get the highest penalty available.

 

Personally, I think that Daisy & the murderer should team up to take out the remaining 100 so they can get away cleanly.

[FiB3R]

Jokes aside, I'd be amazed if anybody thinks that intent does not make a massive difference.

[farmeunit]

26 minutes ago, FiB3R said:

Jokes aside, I'd be amazed if anybody thinks that intent does not make a massive difference.

I agree, but you also have to take into account, are they just "saying" that they didn't know, or how would you prove otherwise.  If she could PROVE it was without intent, but that might be hard to do.  If you are taking the question at it's face value, I would say the intent makes a difference, but she should get penalized. 

 

I don't know all the details, but there was a guy in Missouri that killed someone in a DUI accident and all he got was probation.  Even though is was an accident, why shouldn't he get something for taking someone's life when he shouldn't have been drinking and driving to begin with.

[techbeck]

I would let her poison me anytime...:P   But seriously....one case, poison was done with the means to cause harm.  Other was not.  Obvious difference.

 

 

[TAZMINATOR]

30 minutes ago, FiB3R said:

Is Daisy hot, i.e. the Daisy Duke?

HEY!  Leave my Daisy Duke alone!  She's my woman!

 

She looks good on my General Lee!    

 

 

 

/joking.

 

 

Joking aside, I agree with this quote:

 

29 minutes ago, FiB3R said:

Jokes aside, I'd be amazed if anybody thinks that intent does not make a massive difference.

Depends on what they could find.

[farmeunit]

2 minutes ago, techbeck said:

I would let her poison me anytime...:P   But seriously....one case, poison was done with the means to cause harm.  Other was not.  Obvious difference.

Tell that to their relatives...

[dead.cell]

I'd say both are to be punished but not treated equally. One for basically acting as a terrorist carrying out actions of mass murder or intent for mass murder. The other should be punished based on negligence.

 

Treated differently? Yeah, a bit. One plots for it, the other didn't. However, the latter being in such a position where safety wasn't properly adhered to, I guess my next question is to what extent did she know of this? I think that would determine how awful I consider Daisy Duke to be, and would increase/decrease my position for her punishment.

 

There is no forgiving ignorance and stupidity, especially when it comes as apart of your job.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

The mass murderer should charged, tried and, if convicted, face whatever punishment is provided by law.

 

Daisy Duke should be charged, tried and, if convicted, face whatever punishment is provided by law.

 

Either would more than likely face different charges based on the investigations and would be charged and tried based on the findings.

 

 

I'll get it right....sooner or later.....

 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Raze

[techbeck]

Just now, farmeunit said:

Tell that to their relatives...

Any rational thinking person, even family of the victims, would realize it was not Daisey's fault.  Personally, I would be more concerned about the bucket, the owner of said bucket, and why it was laying around.  Would be the bucket owner's fault.

 

And now that I typed that...that sounded dumb...

[techbeck]

42 minutes ago, DConnell said:

Personally, I think that Daisy & the murderer should team up to take out the remaining 100 so they can get away cleanly.

Her wish is my command...haha

[dead.cell]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

The serial killer should charged, tried and, if convicted, face whatever punishment is provided by law.

 

Daisy Duke should be charged, tried and, if convicted, face whatever punishment is provided by law.

 

Either would more than likely face different charges based on the investigations and would be charged and tried based on the findings.

Is plotting mass murder really the act of a serial killer? Sounds more like terrorism, as serial killers typically have a fetish for the product or the process. (one obsessing over the victim, the other obsessing over the act)

[+Raze Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, dead.cell said:

Is plotting mass murder really the act of a serial killer? Sounds more like terrorism, as serial killers typically have a fetish for the product or the process. (one obsessing over the victim, the other obsessing over the act)

Sorry I corrected my remark.  I was reading something else at the time, crossed my wires.  

[Draconian Guppy]

4 minutes ago, farmeunit said:

Tell that to their relatives...

This is what I was waiting to pop up  

 

4 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

I'd say both are to be punished but not treated equally. One for basically acting as a terrorist carrying out actions of mass murder or intent for mass murder. The other should be punished based on negligence.

 

Treated differently? Yeah, a bit. One plots for it, the other didn't. However, the latter being in such a position where safety wasn't properly adhered to, I guess my next question is to what extent did she know of this? I think that would determine how awful I consider Daisy Duke to be, and would increase/decrease my position for her punishment.

 

There is no forgiving ignorance and stupidity, especially when it comes as apart of your job.

She didn't she found a jug, thought she could use it for water and then did.

 

44 minutes ago, FiB3R said:

Jokes aside, I'd be amazed if anybody thinks that intent does not make a massive difference.

See first quote, what is your stand on that? Intent makes a difference to who? Judiciary system? Lets leave that out, im talking about you

[-T- Member]

Wouldn't Miss Duke be dead too, as she used the toxic container?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 hour ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Is there a difference...

 

Scenario #1

 

Say there's a town of 500 who drink water out of one well.

 

Along comes a mass murderer and poisons the well and kills 200 people who drink that water...

 

 

 

Scenario #2

 

Same town, well and people.

 

 

 

Along comes Daisy Duke and mistakenly used a container that previously had been used for a toxic substance, as consequence the well is now poisoned and when 200 folk consume the water, they die too.

 

 

 

Now, for you, neowinians, what is your stand, is there a difference on how person #1 should be treated to in comparison to person #2?   NOT COUNTING your local/national laws, but how you stand in your sense of morality in terms of what you think is right or wrong?

On the surface ... obviously the two should have two separate punishments (Scenario 1 being the harshest).  
 
However, with Scenario 2, does Daisy even know that the container had been previously used for a toxic substance?  Is she oblivious to the dangers it held or was she simply trying to get some water and inadvertently poisoned the water?  Were there postings on the well which stated to only used supplied container (i.e. not your own)?  If there weren't any rules on using the well and she wasn't aware that the container she used previously held a toxic substance ... I do not see any fault.  Now, if she had two containers ... one for water and one for the toxic substance and she failed to use the correct one ... yes she is responsible for the 200 deaths.  Question is...how did she survive?
 
Edit:  And intent goes a long way on punishment.  If I kill someone on purpose, I would get the death penalty (speaking highest sentence) ... but if I accidently fired my gun striking and killing someone on accident ... I wouldn't.  May spend a lot of years behind bars but the state wouldn't toss me in the electric chair.  

[Draconian Guppy]

Just now, -T- said:

Wouldn't Miss Duke be dead too, as she used the toxic container?

lol, for argument sake, lets say she didnt drink  

[Cnónna]

think we'd need to refer to the wheel of morality for guidance.

 

 

 

[Draconian Guppy]

2 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

On the surface ... obviously the two should have two separate punishments (Scenario 1 being the harshest).  

 

However, with Scenario 2,  does Daisy even know that the container had been previously used for a toxic substance?  Is she oblivious to the dangers it held or was she simply trying to get some water and inadvertently poisoned the water?  Was there postings on the well which stated to only used supplied container (i.e. not your own)?  If there weren't any rules on using the well and she wasn't aware that the container she used previously held a toxic substance ... I do not see any fault.  Now, if she had two containers ... one for water and one for the toxic substance and she failed to use the correct one ... yes she is responsible for the 200 deaths.  Question is...how did she survive?

 

Daisy does not know what the container. She was simply someone trying to get some water.    No postings, everyone used their own container.

lol, for argument sake, lets say she didnt drink and is alive (and to be judged or not by you folk )

 

 

What if... it was a relative of yours that died? would you still think the same way?

[dead.cell]

4 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

This is what I was waiting to pop up  

 

She didn't she found a jug, thought she could use it for water and then did.

 

See first quote, what is your stand on that? Intent makes a difference to who? Judiciary system? Lets leave that out, im talking about you

If you just "found" a jug and decided to use it, I'd be angry. If you bought one, under the impression and guise that it was not toxic, then I'd be more forgiving.

[techbeck]

2 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

What if... it was a relative of yours that died? would you still think the same way?

Yes.  One was one with intent on doing harm, the other was not.  Besides. if Daisy did it on purpose, she still gets a free pass.....

[Draconian Guppy]

1 minute ago, dead.cell said:

If you just "found" a jug and decided to use it, I'd be angry. If you bought one, under the impression and guise that it was not toxic, then I'd be more forgiving.

She just found it and used it.

Just now, techbeck said:

Yes.  One was one with intent on doing harm, the other was not.  Besides. if Daisy did it on purpose, she still gets a free pass.....

So for you intent should be punished more than the result?   

3 minutes ago, Cnónna said:

think we'd need to refer to the wheel of morality for guidance.

 

 

 

Ah forgot about animaniacs!!!

[Jim K Global Moderator]

9 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

 

Daisy does not know what the container. She was simply someone trying to get some water.    No postings, everyone used their own container.

lol, for argument sake, lets say she didnt drink and is alive (and to be judged or not by you folk )

 

 

What if... it was a relative of yours that died? would you still think the same way?

Well, that is really an impossible question to answer.  Yes, the two scenarios should obviously be dealt with differently.  As for Daisy...I really don't know because as with most tragedies... nothing is clear cut.  Also, the town should implement various safeguards so that the well couldn't be inadvertently poisoned in the future.

 

Maybe have cats drink the water first.