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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (75370)	9/23/2003 2:28:38 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Gee, you're tough! Serendipity's not an excuse, either, although it is tempting. So if somebody does a bad thing but winds up with a good outcome (I assume saving lives was a good thing in the long run), that's no excuse. Do you also feel the opposite, that if somebody does a good thing but it winds up having a bad result, are they also responsible for the bad result? Say, somebody sees a passenger fall off a cruise ship and heaves a lifering to them but the ring hits them in the head and knocks them unconscious and they drown. Presumably we would say throwing a life ring to a drowning person is a good thing. But in this case, it turns out that the person actually jumped on purpose as a part of a Fear Factor stunt (no cameras or anything in evidence to show this) and they were due to be rescued by a submarine as part of the Fear Factor stunt, so they were actually perfectly safe, and the person killed them. Guilty of manslaughter? In both cases, a person is dead. In one, bad motive, good outcome. In the other, good motive, bad outcome. Serendipity in both cases. Is it necessary to have BOTH a good motive AND a good outcome to be innocent?