I was thinking of an interesting scenerio. I'd like your feed back.

It has been ten years since your sister has been killed in a car accident. The man who killed her was driving sober, but his brakes caused him to skid on a wet road. There was no trial, no apology.

Ten years later, you find him, he has a family of his own, and you have the ability to condem him for that night.

What do you do? An eye for an eye? But then you destroy his family as well. Let him walk? And live with your loss for ever, with no "I am sorry." A middle ground?

Purely hypothetical.

IMO, that looks like a bad example. Looks alot like an accident, so it looks kinda biased. But, it would be wrong.

Thats not really an eye for an eye scenario

Would it change if he was drunk? Or if he was a stalker? I was just setting the basis up for a scenrio and adding more variables.

If your are still carrying that anger after 10 years you should seek help. Its not mentally healthy and eventually you will hurt yourself or someone else. This looks like manslaughter case whereas your possible response is premeditated. My grandfather used to say the worst thing about an eye for an eye is everyone ends up blind. Also if the guy has a wife and a family chances are if he kills someone accidentally he will apologize, only a complete jerk wouldn't, since an apology costs nothing. either way ask yourself. What would the dead sister want you to do? What would make her happy?

That's a very cool quote, and great point. I never thought of that.

Like I said before, this is hypothetical. And I was tryign to explore the eye for an eye concept. Is it good? Is it bad?

except for a single one-eyed man who is left to rule over a land of the blind.


but you need a better scenario. if it was an accident then there is nothing else that can be done. it obviously wasn't the mans fault that his brakes weren't working properly.

and its not like the sister is suddenly going to not be dead if the man "pays" for his crimes.

I think that an eye for an eye is never a good thing, even if the guy was drunk or did it on purpose. You'll be left with another family ruined, your sister will still be dead and you'll get trialed for murder.
quote for this one: "why do we kill killers to show that killing people is wrong?" (source unknown).

well, i'm pretty sure we kill killers because once they figure out how easy it is. Then they just kill people when ever they have a problem, or when they get bored >_>

controversial topics like abortion, stem cells and the death penalty really congregates where right and wrong disintegrates because both sides have strong points to defend their beliefs

id expect an apology.
but nah not an eye for an eye not here
if he was drunk then yea, but not here, it was an accident so yea

All I know is this... if a drunk driver killed my child, or my child was killed in any other purposeful way, I would kill the person before a trial even started. It may not be right, but that's what would happen in regards to my child.

As for my family, I have a duty to my child. I would WANT to hurt them if they purposefully did something, but I most likely wouldn't. I would probably talk and ask why an apology was never given, but I would have tried to forgive long before that.

But when it comes to my child, no apology or actions could ever make me forgive, and I would hurt them just as they hurt me and my child.

An eye for an eye? I don't think that is fair in this scenario.

As a human, I believe that everyone has a right to life, and disrupting that right means that punishment is applicable. However, is death really fair? What if you kill him? Do you then get killed yourself, relinquishing this endless chain of killings until all life ceases? An eye for an eye right? Perhaps you wind up ending your own life after you kill the person who kills your sister.
What I'm getting at, is that punishment by death is never justifiable. Everyone has a right to life.

But then the situation changes, he was drunk, or he had an intent to kill. That's where the line is drawn. An action is only wrong if the intention is wrong. I'm sure if he was driving well, he'd be sane enough to know that driving under the influence of alcohol is also wrong, or if he deliberately hit your sister, that would make his action wrong as well, not only in the outcome, but in the motivation behind the act. E.g. You see a kid drowning in the water, if you intend to save him, but end up killing him, a follower of Immanuel Kant and the like, would still say your actions were right, as your intentions were to save the boy, regardless of the outcome.

Turning the leaf though, consequentially, whether he meant to kill your sister or not, the fact that he killed your sister makes him in the wrong regardless of intention. But in killing him, aren't you also wrong? Wrong for the fact that you had intention to kill him, and that you actually killed him? Does that make you twice as bad? Besides, it is not your duty to kill him, nor is it your duty to decide whether he lives or dies. It is up to him.

Another point to raise is, what pleasure would you gain from killing him? You have the satisfaction of destroying his life, as he destroyed your sisters, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you've just ended a life of a man who has killed someone in a car accident, driving against the law or not. Does this make up for the pain felt in the aftermath though? The pain of putting his wife and kids in a state of grief, as you felt. And your pain afterward. Will the pain go away if you kill him? Simply killing him for revenge may not balance it out, and may even make your pain and suffering even worse.

As a citizen, you have a duty to abide by the laws enforced around you, including murder. Perhaps the man that killed your sister really did feel it was an accident. You have a duty as a human to rationalize your actions, and how to deal with the pain. What do you not have a duty of here, is to end the life of the man out of spite.

Just my two cents.

I'll take this one step further, it's a matter of perspective, and point of view, if it was as DHZ originally posted purely an accident, than the driver of that car will not see himself as doing bad. After all, it was not his intention to kill, nor to harm. To the driver, it is just a matter of a wrong set of circumstances which unforunately came together when your sister was riding her bike.
To make a side step, is what a terrorist does bad? I (and I think everyone else here as well) would say, yes of course it is bad. To the terrorist though, it isn't bad what he does, to him and his people, he is a freedom figher, a member of the resistance so to say.
What I'm trying to say here, is that good and evil are subjective. What you see as good and evil is a matter of your own ideas, upbringing and situation you're in.
Hitler didn't wake up one day and thought: "hm, I'll do something evil today, I'll kill a few million people". He did what he did because he thought it to be right. That we now all disaprove of what he did is only because the Allies won the war, if the Axis would have one, than we wouldn't have known better as that what he did was right. "History is written by the victors"
I would like to point out here, that I don't support the view points of Hitler, or any extremist who finds the need to strap a couple of explosives to whatever and kill a number of people. I'm just saying this with the stuff I learned during my history lessons in mind. So if I offended anyone, please say so and I'll change/remove whatever offended that person.
Cheers

+1
You make a valid point, though I do kind of disagree with the stance on Hitler. Because as he was as rationalizing human being, certainly he knew what he was doing was wrong, perhaps he didn't. In any case, I can't see where I'm going with this post any time soon.

Interesting point bringing up world war 2 though, would make a great thread.

(IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Perhaps I'll make one after getting my pc back to normal again;)
cheers

Failure to Control a Motor Vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_m...ry_manslaughter

Technically he should have been charged under Vehicular Manslaughter. Whether he serves a long sentence or only gets a slap on the wrist is up to the judicial system (which I think is flawed anyways). If he gets some sort of ramifications then I feel you have no right to continue with thoughts of revenge. Maybe he was following too close. Maybe his tires weren't taken care of. Maybe his brakes were old. Who knows...it would make a good court case.