oo4; some guy would laugh and I'd bust his head // TEXT

[fivestepsahead]

If the victim comes back to life, is it still murder?

If not, why?

Comments

Private

[batmanschmatman]

It's still murder.

[LOL NOT A SORE SUBJECT AT ALL. :|]

Private

[fivestepsahead]

Why is this filtered?

Private

[batmanschmatman]

I filter most of my conversations with people from back home.

Private

[fivestepsahead]

Mm. I expected that answer from you.

Life seems almost demeaned, in this place.

Private

[consultcriminal]

That's really not fair, you know. I gave you hints.

Private

[fivestepsahead]

I would've thought a man of your caliber won't need those.

Private

[consultcriminal]

More resources would be appreciated.

Private

[fivestepsahead]

Are you asking for help?

The name of the code is the same as that of a famous movie.

[timesbureaucrat]

By technical definition, yes, just as a theft is still a theft even if the stolen objects are retrieved and returned to their owner. The more interesting question, I believe, is whether, or how, human social mores react to a reality where murder is usually impermanent. Time Lords, for example, make a legal distinction between a killing that provokes a regeneration and a killing that causes final death.

[fivestepsahead]

Less that of social mores than the notions of morality.

What is the distinction?

[timesbureaucrat]

But social mores are usually influenced by the society's notions of morality. The words even have the same linguistic root.

There are quite a few different distinctions. One example is legal punishments. Final death--usually in the form of vaporization or dispersal--is reserved for high treason, genocide, or other very serious crimes. Forced regeneration, however, is the penalty for a number of lesser crimes including illegally breaking the non-intervention policy.

[fivestepsahead]

Yes, but there are still undeniable truths in ethics that are not dependent on social norms.

Any other examples?

[thegooddrjones]

Yes, it's still murder. The person still dies. Their heart stops, their brain stops working, all their functions cease. Just because it doesn't last doesn't mean it's not death.

[fivestepsahead]

Do you feel the experience of dying is more important, or the will to kill?

[thegooddrjones]

The will to kill. A person can die because of an accident or an illness. They can die of something completely mundane like a heart attack here. But because you want to watch someone's life leaving their eyes? Something else entirely.

[fivestepsahead]

Is the will to kill still enough to persecute even if the perpetrator did it with full knowledge that his victim is coming back?

[aboutpower]

Yeah, it is.

[fivestepsahead]

How do you define 'life'?

[aboutpower]

Life? It's being alive. Having a soul. Not being.. dead or undead. But sometimes undead people can have souls.. but they're still dead. And-

[Pause. She's rambling. Now feeling kind of embarrassed.] Uh. Pretty much. Life is living.

..Did I mention I'm really bad with the whole definition thing?

private;

[fivestepsahead]

It's pretty obvious.

Technically, since the people return, it's not the talking of life. Their souls remain; they don't stay dead. By your definition of life, killing someone here won't take their life.

Why is it still murder?