Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, intent to kill is regarded by the law as far worse than killing without intent - of course, and the former incurrs much heftier punishments. The premeditated killing of one person is certainly far more cruel than accidentily killing 10 (however I find it very unlikely that this would really happen) - take for example someone who accidentily flies off the side of a road and onto a train track - can't move their car and consequently the coming train derails and 10 people die. Although the driver of the car didn't intend to end up with his car on the train track, he was more than likely driving carelessly, and if it wasn't his carelessness that resulted in him ending up on the track then it will have been somebody else's.

    Accidentily killing 10 people is extremely careless and carelessness that leads to harm on any level is not acceptable. But no, killing 1 person with intent is far worse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    the law doesnt have anything to say on this per se, but there has been a discussion about it in the law forum, and Lawz was asked not to comment, so i was wondering if the same applied to me too...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    the law doesnt have anything to say on this per se, but there has been a discussion about it in the law forum, and Lawz was asked not to comment, so i was wondering if the same applied to me too...
    But just out of interest would British Law sentence a man differently because he killed a man on purpose for no reason, to another man who killed a man to get his own justice/revenge for killing his daughter? Or is killing a man seen as killing a man whatever the circumstance (not including self-defence.)

    And not forgetting war - people kill other people all the time in war.

    Those are all examples of killing someone on purpose, whether its moral/immoral I think depends on the situation. There are some people who would say its immoral to kill someone no matter what the circumstance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RMIM)
    But just out of interest would British Law sentence a man differently because he killed a man on purpose for no reason, to another man who killed a man to get his own justice/revenge for killing his daughter? Or is killing a man seen as killing a man whatever the circumstance (not including self-defence.)

    And not forgetting war - people kill other people all the time in war.

    Those are all examples of killing someone on purpose, whether its moral/immoral I think depends on the situation. There are some people who would say its immoral to kill someone no matter what the circumstance.
    You're absolutely right. Take for example, 2 separate cases being held at a Crown Court. Case A is the trial of a man who accidentily ran down a child and killed him/her, Case B is the trial of a man who premeditated and planned the murder of his wife. In Case A the charge would most likely be manslaughter, whereas in Case B it would definitely be murder. Being found guilty of murder incurs a mandatory life sentence, whereas manslaughter (depending upon the circumstances/severity of the accident and carelessness of the defendant) incurs a sentence of no more than 12 years (I think) and it is often far, far less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    knoingly killing is always worse than killing accidently say in a car crash, which i'm sure people would regret wholeheartedly, so its understandable if you get my point?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    morally there is, as it was with intent on killing another person, whereas the other was accidental.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmm...
    morally it is wrong.
    But...if i had to be harsh, it depends on that persons and the other 10 peoples´ skills, knowledge...basically, which has the higher input into the world. For e.g. (a little drastic, sorry)...maybe the one person u killed is an unemployed homeless paedophile. But one of the 10 may have been the one who was near to finding the cure to AIDS or summat...so, weighing it out...killing the 10 accidentaly is worse...
    but you will never find out the future potential of either...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    the law doesnt have anything to say on this per se, but there has been a discussion about it in the law forum, and Lawz was asked not to comment, so i was wondering if the same applied to me too...
    No you can go ahead and give your views...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rach1986)
    If you kill someone deliberately then you are most likely to be an evil person. You obviously have no morals, whereas if you kill ten people accidentally then (dependig on the circumstances) you might actually have morals.

    My friend is about to suffer an excruciating death trapped in a car which is on fire, I have a gun, she begs me to kill her rather than let her burn. I deliberately murder my friend. Have I acted immorally? Am I evil?
    Offline

    9
    I voted yes, but now say you guys are right; it does depend on the circumstances. And, of course, if you're using act utilitarianism morals, it's more likely (though not a certainty) that the first would be preferable. Although I'd say, trying to achieve greatest good for greatest number in any situation dosen't really account for accidentally killing someone...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going for no, because you could be killing someone in self defence, having known they would kill you, or, say, 10 others. It depends whether you think a right to kill exists e.g. Hitler, Bush, Kennedy etc? Also euthanasia- deliberately killing to stop extreme pain. For myself I'd say that an imposed death is sometimes justified.

    As for accidentally killing ten people, were you driving a train that happened on a mass suicide, or were you going 180mph in a 30 zone? (by car)
    It boils down to how you interpret the information given to you by society, and your evaluation of that information. Say you have been instructed to drive the train at 2500mph, in turn people have been told not to play near the the tracks, because it's pretty dangerous, you know? As long as you stick to your side of the bargain, and honour the social contract that you are under, you have not committed an immoral act.

    So, I'd say that is (in certain circumstances) morally right to kill deliberately. To accidentally kill? This can be just as tricky a question because you have to decide if the person responsible was negligent of their duties to society. If they where fulfilling their duties, then accidentally kills are neither right nor wrong, it's just a chance event that has happened and has to be dealt with.

    Main point is that these are two questions bundled into one for no apparent reason.
    Is it morally worse to stand up or sit down?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10.

    It would be dependant on the circumstances at the time. Couldn't possibly Answer.

    What if that one person was going to kill someone he knew was going to kill 10 other innocent people?

    What if the accidental killing was a car driver not taking too much notice of his driving or drunk or on drugs lost control of his car and killed 10 young children near their school?

    What if one person gives another drugs to kill them to end there pain and suffering?

    What if one person purely through financial gain accidently kills 10 people?Example: person owns fairground ride, money needs to be spent on ride to make it 100% safe. Doesn't pay for the work to be done because he can make more money this way. Let's people continue to use ride the ride goes out of control and causes 10 people to die.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by litigation)
    Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10.

    It would be dependant on the circumstances at the time. Couldn't possibly Answer.

    What if that one person was going to kill someone he knew was going to kill 10 other innocent people?

    What if the accidental killing was a car driver not taking too much notice of his driving or drunk or on drugs lost control of his car and killed 10 young children near their school?

    What if one person gives another drugs to kill them to end there pain and suffering?

    What if one person purely through financial gain accidently kills 10 people?Example: person owns fairground ride, money needs to be spent on ride to make it 100% safe. Doesn't pay for the work to be done because he can make more money this way. Let's people continue to use ride the ride goes out of control and causes 10 people to die.

    In most of these "accidental" cases there is strong contributory negligence so the deaths are not truely accidental.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think killing 10 people by acident is wrong but not the fault of the agent (murderer)(depending on the situation), it is however worse than deliberately killing 1 person because according to the consequentialist theory (which i agree with) the outcome of the action of killing 10 be it an accident or not will have a greater negative effect on families friends etc. of the victims, therefore it is more morally wrong to kill 10 by accident then 1 on purpose even though he who killed 1 by purose is more morally impure that the other guy(girl) person.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You gotta be a right idiot to "accidentally" kill 10 people for crying out loud! What, you didnt realize that the gun you were pointing at the 10 people, also had 10 bullets and that when you pull the trigger (aiming at their head), could kill them?
    Stupid question in my opinion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexandra010588)
    You gotta be a right idiot to "accidentally" kill 10 people for crying out loud! What, you didnt realize that the gun you were pointing at the 10 people, also had 10 bullets and that when you pull the trigger (aiming at their head), could kill them?
    Stupid question in my opinion
    Car-tyre blows out and you lose control and swerve into a queue at a bus-stop...

    Break-down on a rural level crossing without means to warn the approaching train...

    Crashing into a minibus after being blinded by low sun whilst driving

    Even one's contributory negligence might be very small relative to the tragic outcome e.g. Making a mistake when picking wild mushrooms for a dinner party (horribly easy to do)...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know.

    If you accidentally kill people, there's generally a reason. I think it would be pretty hard to cause that many deaths without some gross negligence that's almost as bad as intent.

    If you think, oh, i'll drive drunk/ I won't repair this signal box even though you know that if you don't someone may get injured/die that shows a monumental indifference/disregard for human life.

    There was this guy in Sydney who had killed someone due to the paranoia etc that taking marijuana/drinking put him in. He got out of jail on parole, provided he did not drink or take drugs again. This was on the doctor's advice, as they thought he might reoffend or become dangerous if he did so.

    What happened? He took drugs and did it again.
    imo, that's almost if not as bad as murder with intent (well, not every murder with intent, some of those are pretty evil).

    The effects of drinking and driving are known - so anyone who does so knows that they may kill someone doing it. That's extremely callous, and i think indifference can be as bad as hatred. - in this case, it's not malice against a certain person, but human life in general.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Which idiots said no? Somebody should "accidentally" kill those 10 people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DenverDiva)
    My friend is about to suffer an excruciating death trapped in a car which is on fire, I have a gun, she begs me to kill her rather than let her burn. I deliberately murder my friend. Have I acted immorally? Am I evil?
    Not imorally, imho, and if you really didn't want to have to do it (as i imagine you would) then it's not evil either. I reckon that intent, as others have said, is the key factor. In this example, you have no choice, and so you're not responsible. Negligence is important, but simply choosing between killing one person with intent and 10 without intent...i agree with the majority.

    But how far do these numbers go? Is the guy with intent ALWAYS morally more wrong than someone else who makes a completely innocent decision and ends up causing the deaths of many (I think so)? Just think about an accident (not down to negligence) in a nuclear power plant, or a bad decision by the president of the US...or the operator of a nuculear sub...these numbers can be very big.

    Negligence, however, complicates matters. Say the nuclear power plant owner was guilty of very serious negligence and his power plant blows up (eg. chernobyl), killing an estimated 25,000 (for example), is this guy more morally wrong than a guy that walks into a school, shoots a kid and walks out (I think so)? Or do the numbers not matter? Or is there simply good and bad, with little grey?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jaques_derrida)
    Which idiots said no? Somebody should "accidentally" kill those 10 people.
    Award to the fist laugh out loud post goes to Jaque. but you covered my keyboard in soup you *******!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.