18th March 2004, 11:21 PM
Interesting point. Accidental killing actually has some of the same criteria involved though.
So, you accidentally killed a man. It was not your intent to do so. However, the circumstances often warrant differences. You locked a gun in a cabinet, it falls and the impact causes the gun to fire and kill someone? Yes, you are a killer, for you should have unloaded and safety-catched the gun before you locked it in the case. Therefore, you are guilty because of your neglect: Had you properly engaged the safety and unloaded the weapon, the impact would not have killed the person.
The point about saving the baby because it lands on your head is a good one. However, I will have to also display bias in favor of good deeds because as the old maxim goes, it is easier to destroy than to build, easier to kill than to save. A thousand people can watch the baby fall and not do anything about it, but really only one person can save the child. Therefore, since saving the child, even accidentally, is much harder to do than to watch it and do nothing, I am inclined to call the accidental savior a hero, and on that same token, I would not call the onlookers negligent killers if the child died. It is harder to do good than to do bad or do nothing at all, therefore, good deserves the benefit of the doubt, and any accidental hero is still a hero in my opinion.
So, you accidentally killed a man. It was not your intent to do so. However, the circumstances often warrant differences. You locked a gun in a cabinet, it falls and the impact causes the gun to fire and kill someone? Yes, you are a killer, for you should have unloaded and safety-catched the gun before you locked it in the case. Therefore, you are guilty because of your neglect: Had you properly engaged the safety and unloaded the weapon, the impact would not have killed the person.
The point about saving the baby because it lands on your head is a good one. However, I will have to also display bias in favor of good deeds because as the old maxim goes, it is easier to destroy than to build, easier to kill than to save. A thousand people can watch the baby fall and not do anything about it, but really only one person can save the child. Therefore, since saving the child, even accidentally, is much harder to do than to watch it and do nothing, I am inclined to call the accidental savior a hero, and on that same token, I would not call the onlookers negligent killers if the child died. It is harder to do good than to do bad or do nothing at all, therefore, good deserves the benefit of the doubt, and any accidental hero is still a hero in my opinion.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR