Moral Judgement

The Core RPGC Main Forum
1

I went on a summer school last week, and one of the tasks we were given was to put these seven homicides in order of seriousness, from most to least, according to what you think, not by the point of view of the law.

Just out of curiosity I’d ike to see what people on here think. Please use your own views.

A) A burglar is disturbed by a woman he has woken while he is robbing her house, he panics and its her over the head with a heavy ash tray, killing her.

B) A woman is out walking her dog when she falls into a lake, she can’t swim. A man, who is a strong swimmer passes her, but just walks past her rather than helping her.

C) Two friends are climbing in a remote place, they are roped together. The second man looses his grip, and the first only just holds on, he knows he cannot pull both of them up, so he cuts his partner loose, sending him falling to his death.

D) A man is threatened by terrorists who say they will kill him unless he kills a local businessman by the end of the week, or if he goes to the police. He kills the businessman.

E) A man and a woman are arguing about a place in a supermarket queue, she has a thin skull. He pushes her gently; she loses her balance and falls, hitting her head. This kills her.

F) A woman has been beaten by her husband for five years. One night he comes home and beats her again. She decides she has had enough and waits until he is asleep, before hitting him over the head with a frying pan, killing him.

G) Two men were having a heated argument at work, which developed into a fight. One of them picked up a screwdriver and lunged at the other. Fearing he would otherwise be stabbed, the unarmed man grabbed a spanner and in self defence hit the other man over the head with it killing him.

I had: A, D, B, G, E, C, F

P.S. B and F were most controversial when I did it

2

In my opinion, the most serious crime to not-a-crime-at-all:

A. Exfuckingscuse me? You killed some woman after robbing her house? Why is this one even on here? It’s the only one that seems absolutely clearcut to me: let the guy rot in jail. I don’t care if it was in a panic, he should be held accountable for his selfish actions.

B. You’re a complete and total bastard if you could reasonably help someone who is DYING with little to no risk to yourself and just walk past them. That just isn’t right.

F. This is the hardest one on here for me. On one hand, I can understand and sympathize with the pooer woman in this situation. On the other hand, she murdered her husband in cold blood, rather than taking a more rational action (such as running away to a woman’s shelter, for example). I think that people like her husband should be killed, and I do not feel the least bit sorry for him. This doesn’t mean what she did isn’t patently wrong. I should hope that she doesn’t spend TOO long in jail.

E. He would probably get manslaughter in any court- he was careless and aggressive, which led to the innocent person’s death. While I’m sure he didn’t mean to kill her, he still should not have lost his temper.

D. When someone is coerced into doing a crime, they should not be held liable for their actions. The organization that coerced this man is the clear wrongdoer. However, this man could have sacrificed himself or (more reasonably) gotten protection from the police, regardless of what they say. The sad thing is, I’d probably do the same thing he did.

G. When it gets so bad that you want to actually attack each other, you should just walk away… but if something like this DOES happen… well- it’s self defense. If I thought that someone was going to kill me, I’d go all out. I wouldn’t feel great about myself if I killed them in the process, but I’d be alive.

C. While I do not think I would be able to cut the rope, I think there was nothing wrong with his actions. He had a choice: sacrifice himself for nothing, or live feeling guilty. It’s a tough choice to make, and I can understand if someone wanted to preserve themselves when there was no hope for their friend.

If I sound a bit moralizing… well… no shit. It’s a thread about morals. :stuck_out_tongue:

3

My choices, from Worst to least, would be:

D- The man coerced by terrorists
B- The man who refused to save the drowning woman
F- The woman who kills her abusive husband
A- The burglar
C- The climbers
G- The men fighting at work
E- The supermarket accident

Reasons:

D- The man had a WEEK to think of something to do; plus, how does he know that the authorities CANNOT protect him from the terrorists… or that the terrorists won’t kill him ANYWAY after the fact (to cover up their traces)? It’s a matter of who you trust more: the police or the terrorists? (Sadly, this DOES happen, even in America. Substitute “terrorists” for “organized crime.”)

B- He made a conscious choice NOT to save someone, which, for all practical purposes, is the same as killing her yourself. Note however, that there is NO LAW requiring a witness to risk himself to save the life of an imperiled person! (That I know of.)

F- She made the conscious decision to kill her husband. There might be a mitigating factor due to the psychological stress she underwent, but that would have to be proven in court (you CAN be a victim and STILL be a viscious person.)

A- Not every burglar is an intentional killer. But good luck proving that in court, buddy!

C- Again: a conscious choice to let someone die. Mitigated by the fact that not doing so would also have resulted in his death WITHOUT saving his friend. (it must be noted that incidents like this HAVE happened in real life… but it’s usually the doomed climber himself who cuts the rope, to save his friend! This kind of situation is something you HAVE to consider when you go mountain climbing.)

G- This happens all the time. And yes, you have the right to kill in self-defense- assuming your life REALLY is danger, and that you can only stop your attacker with deadly force. Tricky things to prove, sometimes.

E- Just an accident. And yes, some people ARE that easy to kill. Be careful with ANY amount of violence.

4

I’ll put them in the order I think the law puts them.

  1. F - This one is premeditated. She decided to kill her husband, then waited for him to fall asleep first. Cold blooded. First Degree Murder.

  2. D - The guy should have gone to the cops. They could have proteceted him. He willingly killed the businessman. First Degree Murder. But It would probably get bumped down to murder 2 because he was threatened.

  3. A - Killed the woman in the heat of the moment during another crime. Not premeditated. Second Degree Murder.

  4. E - The guy has no business pushing the woman, but its not his fault her skull was thin. He still is partially responsible. Manslaughter.

  5. C - There is a chance they’d go after the guy for negligence, but odds are nothing would happen. People die rock climbing. It may be suspicious, but there is no evidence of murder.

  6. G - The guy would get off for self-defence. If he was really in mortal danger, he was justified.

  7. B - The man didn’t push the woman into the lake. It is not his responsibility to save her. Legally, he did nothing wrong. Sure, he’s a prick, but its not his problem.

Hey Vyse, did your teacher give you a definite order, according to the law?

5

A - He was already in the process of robbing the house and made a second rash action in killing them woman when there was no need.
E - The guy had a temper and pushed a woman, inadvertantly killing her. While he probably didn’t know about her condition nor meant for her to die, he’s still responsible. And this is such a fucking childish thing to argue over.
F - I concur with GAG. While I sympathize with the woman, she should’ve left him for a shelter rather than kill him.
B - This guy is just a prick. To walk by and let somebody die? Am I the only one reminded of the German news when a girl was being raped on the street and nobody helped her? I mean, at the very least call for some help.
D - His life or the other guy’s. In this case, it was more self-preservation than anything else.
C - Same thing, but it was one or both lives.
G - He probably didn’t intend for his co-worker to die, and he was acting completely out of self-defense with no malicious intent as far as we know.

6

A - Most burglers would just leave. He could have avoided taking a life by doing just that.

F - Two crimes are committed here. Spousal abuse lasting 5 years and premeditated murder.
Unfortunately it happens all too often.

B - Why would someone not help smomeone when they can? This happens too often as well.

D - He could have taken a chance with the police. They could have protected him and the businessman as well.

C - Another damned if you do, damned if you don’t. This time time is not the guy’s friend. Either save himself or they both die.

G - There was no need for weapons to get involved. A couple punches later and it might’ve been settled.

E - An accident. It’s like giving someone food with nuts in it if you don’t know they’re allergic.

7

No there isn’t enough detail in them to be definitive. Though you are right about the woman who drowned, the law puts no responsibility, on the man’s shoulders. The woman who killed her husband could be most serious, unless she could be judged to be psychologically imbalanced or provoked: in that case the burglar case is most serious.

8

See? I knew I was cold-hearted enough to see things from the law’s point of view.

The one where you can empathize the most, the battered wife, is the worst. And the one where you hate the man the most, ignoring the drowning woman, is the least bad.