Should human kind seek to save life or destroy life

I want to put you so-called humans to a test. To see if you contribute to life of persons or destruction of persons. Let me present some scenarios for you to participate in:

1. Three ppl say they will commit suicide if the jury finds O.J. guilty on any of the counts against him... And the jury knows about what the three said they'll do.

^^^Should the ppl of that jury seek to save life rather than seek justice (in this case a sure conviction against O.J.)? Yes or no? Explain answer.


2. Three ppl say they will murder innocent children if a judge doesnt let the jena 6 go scott free... The judge over their cases learns of the intent of the three ppl...

^^^Should the judge seek to save life or convict the jena 6 for what they did in juvy court? Yes or no? Explain answer.

3. Are you a humanitarian and/or a religious person? If you were in the shoes of that jury or that judge in the scenarios, what would you do?

 

since people seeking to kill themselves are typically looking for an excuse, i don't figure that it would make any difference what my decisions would make. therefore i would seek justice. one life (looking for a "way out") is not my problem.

again, people wanting to kill innocent children (for real) are ALSO just looking for an excuse. again, i say justice trumps bullshit. seek justice, if someone has a problem with it, fuck 'em.

 

i don't know how to categorize me, for question #3. fair is fair.

 

Natural selection has lots of funny twists and turns.

 

Humans are really not following natural law.

 

humans stopped being naturally selected ages ago



1. Three ppl say they will commit suicide if the jury finds O.J. guilty on any of the counts against him... And the jury knows about what the three said they'll do.

^^^Should the ppl of that jury seek to save life rather than seek justice (in this case a sure conviction against O.J.)? Yes or no? Explain answer.

If OJ is guilty then OJ should face the consequences. If people are stupid enough to put their own life on something like that, then it's no great loss if they go through with it. If we were still being naturally selected, they would be the 3 pigeons who got run over by the car.


2. Three ppl say they will murder innocent children if a judge doesnt let the jena 6 go scott free... The judge over their cases learns of the intent of the three ppl...

^^^Should the judge seek to save life or convict the jena 6 for what they did in juvy court? Yes or no? Explain answer.

The judge should lock those 3 people up for intent of murder and if they go through with it then they are just 3 child murders and nothing more. no moral grounding can surpass the murder of children. if you do it then you alone are to blame.

3. Are you a humanitarian and/or a religious person? If you were in the shoes of that jury or that judge in the scenarios, what would you do?

I am neither.

Both those scenarios show people who are trying to shift the responsibility of their actions onto someone else so that they can get away with henious crimes and tell themselves it wasn't actually their fault. well that's bullshit in my opinion, if you are willing to kill anyone that freely for a "cause" then you are more inhuman than i am. people like that should be feared for their lack of care for their own actions.

 

i agree with that statement

 

you can't go against nature. we are following our nature.

 

We might be following our nature but that doesnt mean its congruent with external nature. We have manipulated and ignored a lot of things, like someone said natural selection is an obsolete process now

I'm not saying we should abandon all technology, i just don't think humans will be able to sustain themselves much longer on this path

 

I think we should continue to administer lethal injections using sterile needles.

 

of course not. which would lead to a very NATURAL extinction. hehehe. i love nature, she's a fiesty bitch.

 

Actually humans surivived the longest as a species and the most leisurely as hunter-gatherers. A lot of people would die off but I'm not sure about extinction

 

we're arguing a silly point. human beings, following their nature, have become too prolific, TOO successful. just like any other animal that becomes too populated and destroys it's environment, human beings will die off quite a bit. but the whole point it, that's natural.

 

I agree completely but what she was saying is we arent following natural law. Like living in harmony with nature, most of the time we try to control and manipulate nature.

 

Considering I'm not sure if everything some yahoo says should be considered letit or grounds for forgetting the legal process.

If Charles Manson isn't freed tomorrow I'll punch an elephant.

Should we take me seriously, or am I a Yahoo?

 

which is OUR nature. it's impossible to circumvent natural law.

 

well, if a jury found out about 3 people that will commit suicide if OJ was found guilty...and that was the reasoning to find OJ not guilty....well, thats grounds for a mistrial...

judge in the jena 6 should seek a trial. and have those people arrested for making death threats again children.

 

I see what youre saying, but i think we're talking about two different things.
There was some kind of thought I was having earlier but itwas abstract and I lost it.
But its not that I disagree with what youre saying, just on a more micro scale I think we should recognize at least our attempts to circumvent it.
To me that mindset isnt wrong but its something i want to avoid because it implies that we cant actively progress, its acceptance.
Personally I feel that we as a species have the capacity of consciousness to really evolve beyond ourselves and what we know to be our nature.

And to answer the original questions..

1. No, they should not seek to save their lives. I think a person has a right to live their own life, as well as end their own life at any point. Im not against interventions in cases like mental illness, grief, and other situations that might make a person irrational. But in instances like terminal illness,or in this case political statements, by all means.

2. A judge should always seek truth and justice. in this case he could baker act the people who pose an immediate danger to others for at minimum involuntary examination and recommend involuntary inpatient placement

3. Not religous, more of a spiritual rationalist. As for humanitarian that depends on your definition. and as judge i would likely do what i said.

To ruski, you make good points but i dont know if intent alone is sufficient for criminal charges

 

How does a judge seek trial? I thought that was decided between defense and prosecution

 

Should the judge seek to save life or convict the jena 6 for what they did in juvy court?

^^ that was the question....i said he should seek the trial, in context of the giving question....the judge should make it possible that the trial happens, not to save a life of outright convict them before a trial happens. thats what i meant. but of course, the defense and prosecution do that before hand, but that was not the question....