Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

hmm, dont know.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Yes, he still killed sombody, he diddnt have to do that, unless by accident. In witch case, no, he shouldnt be punished for that.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

The scientist should be doing that, they both then would belong to the government, with the scientist in jail. Thats how it would happen.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

The guilt is in the hands of whoever cause that situation in the first place, not the desision maker (unless he caused it, if so than he is responcible for whoever killed)

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Still not his fault.

Too many variables are possible in moral dilemas. What's worth more: One life or two lives?

Ona bare level, one life is equal to one-million. It's equally wrong to kill 100 people as it to kill just one.

The problem is, we can make these people anything we want, such as children, rapists, peacekeepers, murderers. And they can each have their contributions to society and what-not. It gets really complicated when you get specific.

At 8/20/08 03:53 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Too many variables are possible in moral dilemas. What's worth more: One life or two lives?

Ona bare level, one life is equal to one-million. It's equally wrong to kill 100 people as it to kill just one.

Bullshit. Not according to the law, not according to common sense, and certainly not according to any sort of decency.

If you murder two people in cold blood, that's worse than murdering one person.

The problem is, we can make these people anything we want, such as children, rapists, peacekeepers, murderers. And they can each have their contributions to society and what-not. It gets really complicated when you get specific.

And now you've defeated your argument further. Different people have different worth. A person who's spent his whole life raping babies is not worth nearly as much as an average person.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: 1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

He escaped from prison while still guilty. He should serve the punishment for that charge only.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Involuntary manslaughter out of self-defense. Does that catch any legal ramifications?

It doesn't matter whether a wrongful judgement spurs unlawful behaviour... it's still unlawful. If I had the power to pardon the two people in the examplse above, I don't think I would. The law is the law. I may only give the minimum punishment however.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

Ownership requires social consent to be of any meaning or application. If the robot feels that it is not owned, and its actions thus break the principles of ownership, then the robot is essentially not owned. Ofcourse, it's not that hard to manipulate a sentient being, so... if the principles of ownership are not broken, then the robot is likely owned. The principles of ownership are control and recognition.

If he can manipulate it physically or psychologically to do his bidding, then he could enslave it. This is essentially the prior question reworded.

Just because a being may be "equal" does not mean it will be free.

The questions are not "does" "could" or "did". The questions are "should" "should" and "should we consider this a free being?". Mechanically speaking, he should do these things if they align with his beliefs/values.

Ofcourse, we're interested in what I would do... I would probably kill it before anyone finds out about it. This is assuming the the robot's sentience is an accident... as I would never create a sentient being on purpose. In the given example, it would be too much work to train and too volatile to my career.

I'll be back for number 4.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Answer: Let him off the hook, and pay him for the lost time he spent in jail, Maybe dock some of the normal costs off to make up for the escape.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Answer:No, because the death sentance is wrong in the first place, and killing in self-defense isn't against the law.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

Answer: If it's a perfect copy of a human being, shouldn't it have human rights. He should treat it like a child, as that's what it basically is, a new human.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Taking one life to save many is not a bad thing. However, this would depend a lot on situation. If he didn't really have to kill the guy, he just assumed he did, that a different story.

yay

At 8/20/08 05:14 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Involuntary manslaughter out of self-defense. Does that catch any legal ramifications?

It would be voluntary manslaughter anyway, if we're assuming the accused willfully killed his executioner.

At any rate, self-defense is an extenuating circumstance that clears the manslaughter charge. You have the right to exercise lethal force if you feel your life or someone else's life is directly threatened by someone's actions. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was necessary and proper to use lethal force in defense of your person, then you're cleared of the manslaughter charge.

People don't get thrown in jail if they can prove they were only defending themselves, that's ridiculous.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

yay

1. He should be exhaunorated and paid reparations for his time in prison.
2. He should be imprisoned, but with a reduced sentence. The guard he killed was innocent.
3. This would be just like a mother with a baby. The baby cannot be enslaved.
4. legally you are aloud to kill someone in direct defense of yourself of someone else. So pretty much no matter what he does, killing the one to save five, killing the five to save one, killing himself so he doesn't kill anyone, everything would be legally acceptable.
5. We all die eventually. Get over it.

I'm starting to have second thoughts about #2. On one hand, if we say that the man is at no fault for killing the prison guard, then we are conceding that a person should be able to lie in court, kill judges, or manipulate any part of the justice system if they really are innocent. I mean, how is killing the judge who will sentence you to death, as a means of self defense much different than killing the guard who is going to carry out your death sentence?

But on the other hand, it's pretty hard to justify giving the guy a sentence for killing the guard. I mean, if someone put a gun to your head, because he thought that you were a killer that had to be stopped, and you killed him in self defense, could we really give you a sentence?

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

They should kill him and cover it up, to protect their reputation and prevent the public from losing faith in the legal system.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

No, they should kill him and cover it up, to protect their reputation and prevent the public from losing faith in the legal system.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

The creator should be eaten alive for playing God, and the creation should be raised as a creationist.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder?

The dead guy should be misrepresented by the media as the "bad guy" so that everyone's happy.

What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

Then the decision maker should be villianized by the media to make a sensational story even more sensational!

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Then it should be reported as a tragic accident with only one man surviving, and he should be labeled as a brave hero . . . just 'cause he happened to survive.

yay

I think you meant to say "YYYYYYEEEEAEAAAAAEEAEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!1!
"

Sarcasm - The only way we should ever express ourselves.

At 8/20/08 11:16 PM, Al6200 wrote: I'm starting to have second thoughts about #2. On one hand, if we say that the man is at no fault for killing the prison guard, then we are conceding that a person should be able to lie in court, kill judges, or manipulate any part of the justice system if they really are innocent. I mean, how is killing the judge who will sentence you to death, as a means of self defense much different than killing the guard who is going to carry out your death sentence?

But on the other hand, it's pretty hard to justify giving the guy a sentence for killing the guard. I mean, if someone put a gun to your head, because he thought that you were a killer that had to be stopped, and you killed him in self defense, could we really give you a sentence?

Unfortunately, they would simply say that he didn't HAVE to kill the executioner, he could have only knocked him out. It's not fair, but he just happens to be unlucky, and there will be unlucky people out there.

There is no perfect legal system, problems like this are beyond our ability to make laws for, so this would have to be considered outside the bounds of normal law. No laws would be made or altered, and the case would be unquotable in other cases. Things like this require more than a simple court and jury, they need philosophers.

At 8/20/08 04:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 03:53 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Bullshit. Not according to the law, not according to common sense, and certainly not according to any sort of decency.

I'm just tossing ideas out there, I never said I believe it.

The problem is, we can make these people anything we want, such as children, rapists, peacekeepers, murderers. And they can each have their contributions to society and what-not. It gets really complicated when you get specific.

And now you've defeated your argument further. Different people have different worth. A person who's spent his whole life raping babies is not worth nearly as much as an average person.

No kidding. Really? But you must define "worth." More often than not it's what you contribute to society, yes? He fits the lowest-common denominator for being human, which some people use to justify treating him like a normal person. I never said I support such a view.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

He should be released. Breaking out of jail is wrong, but only insofar as one is justly imprisoned in the first place.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Yes - manslaughter. The man was right to defend himself, but as a lifelong martial artist I know that there are ways to do so without killing. However, since considerable duress is involved, I wouldn't see the killing of the executioner as full-blown murder.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

LOL, I don't know. I suppose it should have the same rights as a human being if it possesses human-like sentience and consciousness.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Killing someone to save more than one other shouldn't be punished with more than manslaughter charges. Failing to act, however, is tantamount to murder. As for the last one, all that would prove is that life isn't fair.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote:
1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

He's broken the law and wasted prison resources so he should still serve a short term in jail.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

If killing the executioner was the only way for him to preserve his life the he should not be charged. Of course the irony of the situation is that in a real life situation he would most likley go down for manslaughter or even murder.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

If it is an independent being identical in every way to a human the it should be treated as an equal to the scientist. Allowing the scientist to own it would be to endorse slavery and 'human' trafficking.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

He shouldn't be punished either way and if he does kill the one person to save the other 5 he should be praised for saving 5 lives.
If he didn't kill the person and all 6 people ended up dying then he still shouldn't be charged as it was an unforeseeable outcome and the circumstances of the peoples deaths don't fit with murder and are unlikely to fit with manslaughter unless he had a duty of care towards the people and it was determined that he had a duty of care towards the people.

yay

. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?
...Well since he escaped which is breaking the law, he should be kept in maxium security jail for a few days (since he is innocent he will not have to serve the charge he initially had), which is the charge for escaping.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?
Impossible, since he has been sentenced to death and is being executed, none would further investigate the case, but for the sake of the debate, jail for murder in 2nd degree
3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?
Yes, he could do whatever the fuck he wants with it, since it is an artificial product, it therefore has no rights as a human
4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

I can't say... Depends on the situation

Dammit, I messed up the qoute, oh well, I'm not retyping it, read as is.

At 8/20/08 12:21 PM, poxpower wrote: Yes, a perfect copy but you know it's a robot.
Like, he made it and it was already an adult.

;;;;;;;;;;;
Hey....wait a minute?
You didn't specify he/she/it was an adult !
( damn lack of information ) you said a creation...like a brand new....freshly made....he/she/it !

You should never put an animal of any species into a cell it's wrong and unnatural and causes them to lose their mind.
Those aren't moral dilemmas, as the obvious tone is that, virtuously, the choice is correct, in good spirits. The end is nigh to justify the means, etc.

You gave us societal interpretations of what a moral dilemma could be.

At 8/21/08 07:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

Hey....wait a minute?
You didn't specify he/she/it was an adult !
( damn lack of information ) you said a creation...like a brand new....freshly made....he/she/it !

Why would he make a baby robot?
That would be gay.

At 8/21/08 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Why would he make a baby robot?
That would be gay.

Excuse me, but a baby robot with laser vision would be pretty sweet. I don't think I'll get any argument from anyone on that.

At 8/21/08 10:54 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/21/08 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Why would he make a baby robot?
That would be gay.

Excuse me, but a baby robot with laser vision would be pretty sweet. I don't think I'll get any argument from anyone on that.

I'd rather have sharks with lasers on there head. I will say though that most people would look at these questions and get the same answers and that most of the different answers are incorrect according to how the law works.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: 1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Drop he charges that originally put him in jail... charge him for unlawful evasion or whatever for escaping, then commute the sentance via time served.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Same answer as above actually. Since the execution was not, technically unlawful, then killing one dude that is just doing his job is, still, illegal. I mean, otherwise killing your prosecutor who'se doing too good a job on a prosecution for something you didn't do would be a viable tactic. In this case, one might commute the sentance to time served... maybe not depending on other mitigating circumstances.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

He'd own the processes but not the final product. Similar to a doctor performing a patented artificial heart transplant doesn't own the heart once it's keeping the patient alive.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder?

No... defense of self/others applies.

What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

Still no. That's one of those places where there's no wrong (or right depending on your perspective) answer. One view is saving 5 people, another is killing one... as either can be seen as a legally correct action, nothing can be done in either instance. I know of no instance where one is LEGALLY obligated to take a life to save others... which is the only way that any legal action could be taken.

Now the question about which is more moral is completely different.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

That would suck... but still no legal obligations.

At 8/21/08 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You didn't specify he/she/it was an adult !

Why would he make a baby robot?
That would be gay.

;;;;
Well, why would he make a male robot instead of a female one?
That's gay!

Besides what ever robot/creation would be inexperienced 7 be 'childlike'. & that's pedophile behavior if he's having his way with it ;)

I got one.
Moral decision, you GOTTA pick one:

You with your mother OR all of your friends with your mother.

Here's one that I made. Would you rather have killed 1000 people, told someone to kill 1,000,000 people, been best friend's with someone who killed 1,000,000,000 people or not known someone who blew up the earth?

The variables in any of those situation are very heavily influenced by each individual event, each one is different. So I would choose differently for every instance of each question, given specific variables.

?. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Charg him and give him time served

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

YES! though I believe you have the right to defend your life
my suggestion would be 2 charge him with manslauter and give him time served (besides this is Why we have pardons)

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

A rose is a rose is a rose Just becouse Someone was made in a lab does not mean their not human

.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

1NO manslaughter
2You should not be held accountabble for none action (legaly that is)
3 then that woul suck