Worse, better or the same? A Not a Dilemma
 

Well?

Jane, hating her husband and wanting him dead, puts poison in his coffee, thereby killing him. Debbie also hates her husband and would like him dead. One day, Debbie's husband accidentally puts poison in his coffee, thinking it's cream. Debbie has the antidote, but she does not give it to him. Knowing that she is the only one who can save him, she lets him die. Is Debbie's failure to act as bad as Jane's action?

...yeah, it’s equally as bad if she knew that it would save him but deliberately didn’t give it...bad Debbie...

hhhmmm I'm going to say Jane is worse here :think:

Why do they have pioson

I think they are equally guilty, they both did something to cause a death, one putting the poison in the coffee, the other not giving the antidote.

They had a problem with rats driving through their kitchens :smug:

valar morghulis

...yeah both actions caused the same outcome of a death was my thought process as well for them to be equally as bad...Jane and Debbie are not good people...

Have these murdering beggars never heard of divorce:fist:

So seeing as most of you think that both are equally as bad, what if you had to pass their sentences but the judge said one of them gets 25 years and one gets 10 years. Which sentence do you give to who?

In response to your question in the other thread; action is worse than inaction. So Jane gets the 25 years for actively causing the death while Debbie gets 10 for doing nothing. In terms of safety, it's FAR more likely that someone who has already actively killed someone, deliberately, will kill again. They are both equally GUILTY in the deaths, but Jane is more DANGEROUS than Debbie.

So i was right all along basically. Jane is worse :idc:

Morally I still say they're both the same. Debbie is still just as willing to cause a loss of life - she just doesn't have the stones to actually go through with it... Which makes Jane more of a risk to others in most normal settings.

Or in other words, Debbie's reason for being "less of a killer" isn't a difference in WANT, just in actual ability. Then you have to go into the question of whether morality is rooted in desire or in action. I'd argue mostly the former.

This one reminds me of a scene in the Handmaids tail actually (only read if you're up to date)

There is a thought experiment already along those lines, similar to this one...

Julie wants to kill her friend. She makes them tea, and spoons what she believes to be rat poison into her friends cup. However, it's actually sugar, and nothing happens to the friend.

Sue has no intention of harming anyone. She makes herself and her friend tea, and accidentally spoons rat poison into her friends cup from a bowl, believing it to be sugar. Her friend dies.

Which of the two is more deserving of punishment?

I'd say that situation was more or less identical to (probably even inspired by) the train track dilemma.

hhhhmmm not sure I agree with that either tbh, a desire is inconsequential unless it's acted on

Yeah, the reasoning behind it I suppose yeah it's more similar to that one

Debbie, because she didn't hate him enough to poison him but didn't save him

Obviously Julie, because she attempted a murder, only the fact that she's an idiot stopped her.

Sue's was purely accidental. She didn't know someone had put rat poison in the sugar bowl so how could she be punished? It's must surely be the person who put the rat poison into the sugar bowl who was responsible?