Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yeah... so does not... that's the whole damn trolley problem thing... there were clear and defined outcomes for not pulling the switch. May have been justifiable, not even debating that, but you still own the choice.
you can't be responsible for something you didn't cause. that's not how responsibility works.
There are differing opinions on that depending on which philosopher is at the switch. What doesn't change is they all have to watch the carnage.
but some of them choose to become murderers
No, all of them did. Through action or inaction. So again, if it was in service of a better tomorrow so be it, but it is what it is.
you can't murder through inaction, unless words don't mean anything.
why wouldn't you show the whole paragraph?
this is cherrypicking
I don’t understand how can it be cherry-picking when it is a reply to a comment, which stated in it’s entirety
the full definition requires an act. you cherry picked one ambiguously worded section.
Summaries are by definition ambiguous. They’re quick overviews of a subject, not in-depth analysis. If I wanted to cherry pick like a troll, I wouldn’t have linked to a source, which itself has footnotes.
As far as US law is concerned, it is entirely possible to murder through inaction. That is my only point.
that's not what your source says.
We understand English differently. There’s no point in continuing this conversation.
have a nice day
Thanks. You too!
It ["depraved heart" murder] is the form [of murder] that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence... It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence... It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not.
Murder, maybe not, but "allow to die through in-action" sure can.