Look at the justification for killing in self defense: " In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."
Sorry, I am interested in the rigorous, philosophical definition of this concept.
Umm… “not guilty”?
I am interested in a generic concept, which can be applied to specific circumstances. But you are correct. This concept cannot be defined outside some specific context, just like others. So there is no “intrinsically” innocent person, just like there are no “intrinsically” evil acts.
In that case what is “guilty”? You cannot define something by reducing it to something equally undefined. And I am not interested in legal definition, only in a philosophical one.
You missed the emoji.
How about ‘morally culpable’? So an six year old child shooting off a loaded gun would be innocent. There has to be intent.vern_humphrey:
I am interested in a generic concept, which can be applied to specific circumstances. But you are correct. This concept cannot be defined outside some specific context, just like others. So there is no “intrinsically” innocent person, just like there are no “intrinsically” evil acts.
In that case what is “guilty”? You cannot define something by reducing it to something equally undefined. And I am not interested in legal definition, only in a philosophical one.
He would be innocent of malice. But that is not the only measuring scale of innocence. That is the whole point. You are allowed to defend against a malicious harm. But what about the harm which is not intended?
I think you’d be at fault shooting a six year old waving a gun around. If he accidently shoots someone then by definition harm was not intended. I don’t think you can have guilt without intent. And if there is no intent then you’d be…innocent.Wozza:
He would be innocent of malice. But that is not the only measuring scale of innocence. That is the whole point. You are allowed to defend against a malicious harm. But what about the harm which is not intended?
No. In the context here, we’re talking about someone who is uninvolved in the moral act, but just caught up in it by virtue of circumstances. (Of course, I’m making the assumption that this thread has spun off of the “trolley” thread. There, the discussion of what “innocent” – in the context of the victim(s) – means.)
You’re still missing the point. Not ‘innocent’, but rather, merely not subject to bearing the consequences of the act.
The Hebrew word for “innocent” (naqiy) means “blameless; free from punishment.” It is used in Psalm 109:38 to describe children. A truly “innocent” person does not deserve to be murdered, because they have not done anything wrong to merit capital punishment, like murder (Genesis 9:6).
That scenario is just an example. Yes, the parents or guardians would be legally responsible in this case.
Technically correct – self defense is not murder. Consensual sex inside marriage is not rape.
You missed the poster’s name. What you quoted was my post, not Wozza’s.
My bad. Xin loi.
No problemo… if this would be a biggest mistake in the world, we would be in very good shape. The whole reason for this thread was to show that “innocence” is not as important as it is assumed to be.