A question related to morality 2.0

@clousems

The moral gravity depends on the identities.

possible volcano kickers and volcano kickees:

Dr Who
The Master
Sherlock Holmes
Moriarty
James Bond
Goldfinger

Let's roll a dice.
4, Moriarty is the guy doing the kicking.
1. Dr Who gets kicked.

Plot: Moriarty tries to murder Dr Who by kicking her into a volcano. In that case Moriarty is sentenced to a lifetime of silence in the Society of Oddfellows.

I looked it up in US federal law, where it says that:

* Murder shall be punished by life imprisonment or death. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
* Manslaughter (impulsive (no more than 15 years) or involuntary (no more than 8 years): www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1112
* Attempted murder: No more than 20 years. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1113

Kicking them off the cliff is intentional, so manslaughter doesn't apply. But I still think a prosecutor should only go for attempted murder. The additional punishment doesn't apply if the victim doesn't die, regardless of the reason.

whats the point anyway, we're all gonna die

its the bit before we kick the bucket vellarco , true death is a natural part of life and shouldnt be so feared , but the point is to live prior mate and hopefully live a fulfilling life

Convict him of what he did , attempted murder. Why would you convict someone of a more serious crime based on his confidence he would be successful?
Do we ask shoplifters, 'how confident were you you were going to get away with it?' And if they say 'I thought I would for sure' do we charge them for armed robbery?

There are so many good and interesting ethical questions you could have asked why would you pick such a silly one?

the killer coulh have beed dead for not wearing protecting gear(the vocalno have gases t at could kill a person)

Option 1

@Shadow1414 said in #1:
> You have 2 options:
>
> 1) They tried to kill someone, but failed, so they only tried.
>
> 2) You sent the person to jail on the grounds of murder

Attempt of murder and murder is the same.
The intentional act is the cause of the crime, not the action.
Rather the person survived or not, is irrelevant in any morally lawful court.
The intent was to murder someone, so there should be no leniency on the matter.
Regardless if the attempted murderer was successful or not.

Seriously, why should a smart assassin have a different trials than a stupid assassin?
The crime is the same, only difference is that one of them succeeded.

@NaturalBornTraveller said in #18:
> Attempt of murder and murder is the same.
The difference is easy to spot. In one the victim dies, and in the other he does not.

#19 I am well aware of the difference.
But objectively speaking, their motives are the same.
Only difference is that one was successful, and the other was not.

Do you think that the success of a killing is worse than the attempt of a killing?

I do not, I view and judge them of their actions, and not of their success story.
The intention was the same, only difference is that one was unsuccessful.