Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15950)	6/29/2002 9:51:07 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

I will consider your example further.....

To: Lane3 who wrote (15950)	6/29/2002 3:08:45 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Yes, there was malice, in the ordinary sense, or she would have exhausted all solutions before striking. If she had not thought that he had no right to impose further misery or care upon her family, and therefore deserved to die, he would not have been killed. But beyond this, whether she feels hostility is not quite what I mean by malice. Technically, malice is an intention to do wrong (to cause harm or transgress the law) which one knows is not truly justified. That is the importance of whether there is the ability to discern between right and wrong. It is presumed, of course, that everyone has motives for what he does, and seek to persuade others that he is in the right. But the law regards persons who are sane as acting in bad faith when claiming exoneration, because they knew that they were choosing between adherence to the rules and self- satisfaction. The essence of choice is that, on the one hand, the solution is indeterminate, but, on the other, that the implications of the choice are clear. Thus, the women did wrong, knowing that an objective observer would not absolve her, because she was tired of living with the problem. Thus, she acted with malice.......