Can You Choose What You Believe?

[pearl]

So you wouldn't consider a person as committing murder if they were firing a gun out towards a crowd and ended up "accidentally" killing a bystander? Keep in mind that the individual had no motive to actually kill someone, only to cause fear.

We can stretch hypotheticals to the absurd. What you're positing is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowd when there was non, and not being held accountable for those who died in the stampede, neither of which would allow for empathy to alter a guilty version.

 

[night912]

We can stretch hypotheticals to the absurd. What you're positing is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowd when there was non, and not being held accountable for those who died in the stampede, neither of which would allow for empathy to alter a guilty version.

No, they are different. Sometimes what may seem to be absurd at a glance, can turn out to be not absurd at all when it's being looked at more carefully. My scenario has the suspect be the direct cause of death. Yours do not. Mine has the suspect doing an act that's known as being dangerous and high possibility of harming others. Yours do not.

Let's make this easy by using the obvious. Take two separate scenario, that are the same on the surface but can be differnt upon closer inspection. Say that someone shoot another person and that person ended up being dead. Now both shooters claim that they had the intention to cause injury but not kill. Suspect A was found not guilty of murder due to self defense. Suspect B was found to be guilty of murder. Now what evidence would it take to convince you into believing that suspect B had committed murder.

 

[pearl]

Now both shooters claim that they had the intention to cause injury but not kill.

How did the dead shooter make any claim?
Let me try to explain my position concerning 'real guilt'.
One person has made her/his way of life through stealing from others. Another steals when confronted with a dilemma and has tried alternative courses of action but to no avail and needs to feed his family so he/she is caught stealing. Now, there is solid evidence that the crime was committed by the person. Would you assign the same degree of guilt to both?

 

[MNoBody]

so many good points raised so far....what hasn't been covered?
let's see, i read the thread title and look in, interesting OP
have some thoughts that formed right away, ...start reading...find that other people have also had the same thoughts and are exploring them.....intelligent discussion.....fairly reasonable for the most part, some quite brilliant and astute......

one thing though that stuck was , how does one choose whom they fall in love with,
or decide what food they like, what music they like.....etc?
there is some kind of sub-conscious process at work which is so primal that we are always one step behind...... have to think about it...why do i love, so and so???? how did that happen?
what is the process that activates it and governs it?
which then I turn into conscious ideas, opinions, positions , which there is a strong "feeling" behind which supports this now consciously described/depicted ides/belief

belief = acceptance .... dis-belief= rejection....
so these already denote a choice of some kind has already occurred

[interacting>processing>interacting>processing] seems a more efficient mode of ratiocination