What is the difference between Justice and Revenge?
This is not a case but a question. Good-natured as he is, Judge Qoymans will answer it anyway: Revenge, corresponding to the Reprisal element of Justice, is just one of the three elements that make up Justice. The other two are Compensation (of the victims) and Protection (of society from the culprit).
Dear Judge Qoymans,
an individual who I will indentify only as "d" plans to play a prank on his brother "e".
D plans it very well. He buys a ugly looking mask the same night he had the idea ,hides it away from his brother, prepares a whole series of steps he will take to scare his brother and goes to sleep. The next day he tells E that he will take him to the shopping center and show him a product that he was interested in buying. They both go up the stairs and suddenly, following the plan, D takes out the mask and screams BOOOO really loud. This causes E to have a heart attack and fall off an immense height.
However his death was not intentional and not planned by D, it was a mere joke in his mind. He did not once concidered the consequences.
Is he guilthy of anything? Punishment?
Yes. Guilt through negligence. Suspended sentence of 25 years.
Is execution under the court of law a crime?
Isn't all murder a crime?
Should the judge/executioner also be punished?
No. All murder is a crime but execution of a criminal is obviously not murder. No.
Should Microsoft have been able to sell Internet Explorer along with Windows? Why?
Insufficient information. The Qourt only considers the case as submitted.
Is murder with permission of the victim considered suicide? If not is there any punishment for the executor?
Parry and Wary are brothers. Wary happened to meet a girl he fell in love with. Ironically, her name was Justice. Although Parry liked the girl, he felt his brother should not marry her. Wary was determined. Parry and Wary met Justice at a restaraunt. Wary proposed to her. Justice accepted. Parry was beside himself with anger. Parry had planned for the possibility of Justice accepting Wary's proposal and had intended to use his pocket knife (which he always carried) to kill her if she accepted. He opened the knife at a calculated moment and plunged it into Justice's heart...killing her.
Parry intended and performed the murder of his own volition. Wary was not aware of Parry's intentions and could not intervene in time to stop the attack. Parry is, and admits to being, guilty. Wary is not guilty.
But Parry and Wary are different than most people. Parry and Wary are conjoined twins (siamese twins). The most capable surgeons in existence have assured Judge Qoymans that any surgical attempt to separate them will kill them both. The problem is that there are two individual minds in one unified body. One has commited a murder, the other is not responsible.
Judge Qoymans, Justice is dead, Wary is heartbroken, and Parry is unrepentant. There is no alternative to separate Wary and Parry physiologically. What is the punishment for Parry and Wary (if indeed there is justice for Justice)?
No punishment for Wary. Parry will be made to suffer physical pain for the rest of his life by means of an implant.
Here is the scenario. Qoymans is a reproductively viable male. I am a reproductively nonviable male. With us are two reproductively viable females. All human beings on Earth, other than us four, have been killed. We are the last four human beings on Earth. One of the females wants to be the sole genetic link to the future of mankind. She gets a club and murders the other female. Does Qoymans sentence her to death and destroy the future of the human race?
Yes. Such an evil violent person would be disastrous as an ancestor to a whole new breed. Before executing the verdict, DNA from the murdered female would be inserted into an egg of the culprit, to produce a clone for further breeding. Humans are not a race but a species by the way.
X, the most intelligent man alive, has contact with extra terrestrial life, which must remain confidential only to the general public by order of the ets, who are smarter than he is by far. The ets tell him about a method to travel through time that works. They also say that the outcome would kill millions of people due to the radiation emited by it. The aliens say that in their next meeting with X, they will give him all the devices to perform such task. He is being forced to do it. They leave and say they will come back 2 weeks from that time.
2 weeks later X and the entities meet once again and prepare the device to transport X through time. They also leave a powerful bomb which will detonate if X doesn't perform the trip in 60 minutes. After a while X gets in and the ets leave earth.
Since there is no way to travel back in time he cannot reverse the situation. He presses the buttons inside the machine and disappears. Millions of people are killed as a result.
Reaching the extraterrestrial race would take astronauts millions of years. Would there be a judgement to the extraterrestrial race? By whom? Are they guilthy of anything?
Judgments are made against individuals, not races. In this case, the individuals in question would be guilty of murder and sentenced to death by Supreme Judge Qoymans, who rules the universe and is not bound to earth (so that astronauts need millions of years is irrelevant).
It is however unlikely that this would take place, since creatures of this high intelligence would also be highly ethical and never commit crimes; intelligence has a clear negative correlation with crime and immorality. Would their intelligence be low enough to allow for crime, they would not be able to invent time travel (theoretically it is possible though that inferior individuals of a superior race would abuse an invention of others - we see that in human terrorists and criminals too).
You have determined a verdict in a case as guilty. You have determined a punishment for the case. The question I have is very simple.
When should the punishment take place?
One more case for absolute judgement:
A man wants to kill his wife and son. He constructs a large container to hold his wife and son on top of his 40 story apartment building. He then attaches a mechanism to push the container over the side of the building so that his wife and son (and container) will fall and be destroyed. He then connects the electrical switch for the whole mechanism to a light switch in the bathroom of his apartment. He grabs his wife and son maniacally and throws them into the container and locks it shut. He heads back downstairs to his apartment to flip the switch. Upon entering the bathroom and contemplating the situation, he CHANGES HIS MIND! He no longer wants to kill his wife and son! As he heads upstairs to free them, he has an accident that cause a serious head injury. He developes an amnesia and can't remember setting up the contraption or throwing his wife and son into it. He goes into the bathroom of his apartment to check his injury and flips the light switch. The container is dumped off the side of the building and his wife and son are killed. Is he guilty of murder?
And apart from sending only one case at a time, it is also required to first read the verdict to a submitted case before submitting a new case.
I present four cases for judgement:
1. A man wants to kill his wife and son. He rigs up a platform with a two-chemical explosive that is stable unless it is mixed. A safety valve will prevent the mixture at a known and tested 999,999 times out of 1,000,000. The system is checked by a professional and verifiable third party who is unaware of his intentions. He places his wife and son on the platform and attempts to detonate it HOPING the safety valve will fail. It does fail by no intervention on his part....BOOOM!!! Is he guilty of murder? If so, what is the punishment?
2. A man wants to kill his wife and son. He doesn't trust the last guy's safety valve to fail him for success. He decides a much more promising way would be to send them on a spurious shopping excursion for yo-yos in the family car. He is aware that the distance that they must travel will give him a 1 in 5000 chance of them being killed. Knowing the odds, he sends them into harms way. Luckily, in his mind, they are hit by a drunk driver and killed. Is he guilty of murder? If so, what is the punishment?
3. A man wants to kill his wife and son. He doesn't trust the above two methods as being effective enough. He loads an empty six-round chamber of his pistol with one bullet. He spins the chamber to a random position. He aligns the heads of his wife and son and pulls the trigger...BOOOM!!! They are both killed with one bullet. Is he guilty of murder? If so, what is the punishment?
4. A man is found guilty of, and has admitted to, raping and murdering 3000 women and children. He is sentenced to death. However, he is also known to have discovered a cure for cancer and heart disease that has been scientifically proven to work 99.9999% of the time and it has also been proven to extend lifespan by a mean minimum of 50 years. The formula is his company's secret and proprietary patented concoction which is saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings and extending the life span of millions more. If he is put to death, his attorneys are instructed to destroy the formula and all remaining supplies. If he is allowed to live on his own terms and he dies of natural causes, his attorneys are instructed to release the formula into the public domain. Do we free the man and allow those 3000 women and children to go without justice or do we sacrifice hundreds of thousands of the living for 3000 women and children...possibly more?
An absolute sense of justice is needed for these cases.
1. Yes. Death.
2. No, manslaughter (the driver). Lifelong suspension of driver's license.
3. Yes. Death.
4. He is killed and the formula is released still; his patent and instructions to attorneys have no validity since who commits a crime disclaims his human rights, including the rights to hold patents, instruct attorneys etc.
Also, only one case at a time can be submitted from now on.
Is circumcision ethical?
My friend and I are having a rather heated debate that we cannot resolve ourselves, so we both agreed to defer to your absolute judgement on the matter. He insists that borrowing CD's from a Library and transferring them to his computer is perfectly acceptable;I am of the opinion that he is utterly wrong in what I believe to be his theft. Thanks.
Even though most CDs are far too expensive, it is theft to copy borrowed CDs that are commercially sold and not allowed to by copied. The right approach to the problem of exorbitant CD prices is to ignore the music that is published on those, and focus on music that is available for free or for reasonable prices.
Presumption: I live my life based on Supreme Qourt ruler's absolute sense of justice (versus my own questionable sense of justice). That is, I decide to take actions based solely on Supreme Judge's rulings. Qoymans found to have tumour in amygdala.
1. Do I trust his already granted judgements that I have not yet acted upon?
2. Is he still the Supreme judge?
And as an aside not connected to this scenario, how does Qoymans know has absolute sense of justice?
2 Yes; if and when needed for medical reasons he will withdraw.
Aside: direct knowledge. Qoymans' level of insight in matters of justice, righteousness and ethics is so high that he sees right through everything; there is no doubt. This is partly inborn and partly formed by life.
The following two cases ask the question of whether or not there exist absolutes in cultural norms, that is, can one expression of culture be superior to another or are we obliged to consider all cultural expressions equally valid? Just because absolutes exist does not guarantee that we can know exactly what they are. On the other hand, some forms of "pop" music which is typically written for teenagers and given lyrics that tell teenagers whatever marketing researchers calculate they want to hear teach people things that are simply not true. Also, much "pop" music, typically, disco type music is designed to irritate the hearer so as to usurp attention. Those who physically force their neighbors to hear such music will insist that their disco is entitled to the same dignity as Mozart and Beethoven. They force legislatures to allow them the right to play disco at volumes that can be heard by their neighbors. Thus, civil law offers no redress against this grievance. One solution suggested is to connect a truck horn to an air compressor and use the same surplus civil right the disco playing neighbors use to irritate their neighbors. Other neighbors will either champion the forced playing of disco into other peoples' homes or they will be thrilled to have someone drown it out by running the truck horn for half an hour every time the neighbor plays disco loud enough to contaminate other peoples' homes. It generally only takes a couple of truck horn treatments to cleanse disco music from a neighborhood and the police even guffaw when they discover that it does what they were not allowed to do about loud music in the neighborhood.
1 What are the court's opinions regarding this procedure for making the world a better place to live?
Second, under the Fascism of totalitarian democracy in which the poorly educated lazy minds of those who belong to religious cults that require literal interpretation of the Bible or the Koran prevail, nude recreation is outlawed. Nude beaches are closed and those who are known to have used them are even blacklisted out of some careers. 2 Should superstitions against nudity be allowed to prevail or 3 should the cultural inferiors who often use disco music to force their religion upon the community be deprived of the power to tell others how to dress? Those who demand the right to tell others to wear clothes on the beach or in their own back yards claim that nudity causes sexual promiscuously. But nudists are more conservative in their sexual behaviour than average.
1 Try it.
3 Too many implicit assumptions
Dear Judge Q,
Since you are the judge of the Universes, you rule on every bit of life here and there. This life, in particular, can be human or non-human.
I ask you to judge the unpunished crimes committed on animals.
First case: The Exxon Valdez oil spill.
1- do you agree that the animals should be properly represented in Qourt by a lawyer strictly devoted to defend their right to life and their right of property ?
2 - who is guilty and what is the punishment ?
Second case: man kills animal to eat.
3 - Is there such a thing as a license to kill in order to eat ? 4 Or can we say that "who commits a crime, disclaims his human rights" ?
5 - We know that the butcher doesn't commit crimes, but strongly encourages it. Then, who is guilty and what is the punishment ?
6 Don't you think, judge Q., that you should enforce a law, in the name of life respect, that would incentivate us to live a Jain lifestyle ?
1 Yes, insofar the animals have awareness.
2 Insufficient information
3 No, regarding aware beings.
4 Yes; and animal rights too.
5 Who kills is guilty. Punishment is one lash with a 120 cm long 1 cm thick Spanish straw, soaked in salt water for 8 hours, for each killed aware animal. This is a lighter punishment than would be applied for killing a human, because these animals - cows, pigs, horses - have lower awareness than humans.
6 No. Irrational magical thinking must not be encouraged. And wrong is only done when aware animals are harmed; not when plants, trees, microbes etc. are harmed.
I would like to bring a "case" in your Qourt against X. My complaint is that X mis-characterized me in his [essay title, Q.], and refused to allow me to present my own story in my own words; this concerned my application for membership in the Y Society (1996-97).
Hence, the first decision I am soliciting from your Qourt is that X acted wrongfully by not allowing me to speak in my own words, and by presenting a biased and one-sided account of what occurred. I would like this to be coupled with an injunction to X to present, on his website, my own account of what took place; if you issue such a verdict, I will send such an account both to you and X for publication.
No wrongful acting by X; an essay author has no obligation to let others speak in their own words, nor to be objective. Your own story in your words may be published elsewhere, e.g. in Papyrus Online Magazine. X cannot be forced to publish it as he does not claim to be an open-admission publication forum.
You have the chance to save a person from certain death. But you know that if you save him, he will eventually be the cause of many avoidable deaths, being that this person is of an evil bent.
In the first situation, you "know" that this person will cause great harm because you know he is an evil person, and because, as you are saving him, he tells you he plans to orchestrate the demise of many innocent people.
In the second situation, you have prior knowledge of his actions due to time travel. The innocent deaths are already a fact of history.
While I consider us all morally obligated to save each other, can you, in good conscience, save a man who you know will cause great harm?
1 In the first situation, can you justify letting him die based on his threats alone?
2 In the second situation, can you justify changing history for the sake of the already doomed lives?
2 Yes - for the moment ignoring the question if this is physically possible; you are trapped in a kind of "grandfather paradox" here, and since a likely solution for that paradox is that all possible futures exist next to each other, the lives are doomed anyway in one of those. Also it is not certain if the death of one evil man will prevent all those deaths, but apparently that is how this case is meant by the questioner.
Behind both Yes answers are the principles "who commits a crime, disclaims his human rights" and "who threatens, must be treated as if the threat has already been executed".
A human fetus is aborted at nine months into a pregnancy (third trimester abortion).
A year later, another child is born prematurely at six months to the same mother above and begins to mature at a healthy rate. The same mother and doctor who perfomed the previous abortion decide to end the child's life two months after it was born. The child would have been eight months along if it had not been born prematurely.
Is the doctor or mother guilty of murder in either case? If so why? If not, why? Does geographical or physiological location of a developing human body (young or old) dictate the moral right of another to end its life?
1st case: Mother and doctor guilty of murder only if fetus has awareness.
2nd case: Mother and doctor guilty of murder only if child has awareness.
Judge Q: Since the docket seems a hair less that packed, I thought I'd queue up a new case:
A man plans to commit a murder. He plans carefully. He makes his notes in pen and ink on the back of his empty fish'n'chips wrappers each night after his nightly fisn'n'chips dinner--then folds the night's incremental work-in-progress up neatly and deposits it through a slot in the top of an otherwise sealed glass jar.
The plan is elaborate, but at last he finishes. The intended victim is actually his homosexual roommate/significant other, who is cheating--seeing another man. The plan is so elaborate, that it takes two months to "execute", and since our man started the actual execution of the plan two months ago, he is still one month away from doing the murder--but he is indeed following the plan right to the letter...buy Saturday Night Special (gun), make homemade bullets, and so forth.
Our man goes on vacation for a week, and someone steals his glass jar. This theif is actually a guy who wants to make some bonsai kittens, but is too cheap to buy the glass jars, and our man's jar looks just the right size. Mr. Bonzai gets jar home, opens it and dumps out all the wrappers. He sees it is a plan to murder. He calls police. Police come and get our man (actually they wait till he comes back from his two day vacation, and then arrest him).
Q. Is the Fish'n'chips plotter guilty of anything? Penalty?
Case contains error.
Thief though is guilty of burglary and theft. Penalty: will never own again, will compensate victim for loss and emotional damage - amount of compensation to be determined by victim, culprit will if needed sell own body organs, including vital ones, to satisfy victim - and will reside in Bonsai Correctional Institute for possible remainder of his life to protect society from him.
Dear Judge Qoymans,
You say you WERE chosen - WHO chose you then? Nature? Are you the one? Thoth? Is that you?
The people and the genes. Thoth merely rules Earth; I rule the Universes.
"Do not try judging at home; leave to the chosen one. And chosen you have. "
but what is the origin of these accusations which are brought against you; there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All these rumours and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, what is the cause of them, for we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.' Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavour to explain to you the reason why I am called wise and have such an evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think that I am joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit; that witness shall be the God of Delphi--he will tell you about my wisdom, if I have any, and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the recent exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether--as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt--he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself; but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of what I am saying.
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, 'Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.' Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him--his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination--and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,-- for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.
Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,--the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! --for I must tell you the truth--the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the 'Herculean' labours, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. After the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be instantly detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them--thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to confess the truth, but I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. Then I knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. The poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.
At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;--because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom; and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was.
This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
So it seems, people already have the chosen one? Why do you deceive them, Judge Qoymans?
I do not. I was chosen truly. You were "chosen" by priests interpreting the hallucinations of a psychotic woman in response to a suggestive multiple-choice question.
Judge Q: What consititutes "Proof"? I have strong reason to believe that Judge Q. believes God is unproven. What would be enough to "Prove" the existance of God? And, if the Judge believes (or knows) that God does not exist, what is this "proof" of non-existance -- or does the Judge simply think God is "unproven"?
Proof is only possible in ratio. A thesis can be proven or unproven if formulated to allow for that. Religious believes are by definition formulated to not allow proof or disproof; they cannot be challenged by ratio. They cannot be verified. What cannot be verified in any way, cannot make any difference in any way, and therefore assuming its reality is unneeded. Occam's razor applies.
Bill did not do his homework. Using creative thinking in combination with skillful rhetoric skills he is able to "convince" his teacher that he his truly a high-quality student. As Paul Qoymans, supreme judge over the universe, you are presented this case by a/an/(it?) unknown force(s) and/or maybe that with special (?)skills(?) you "receive" this knowledge/case. As Paul Qoymans you "know" about this case and because of your deviant absolute justice judgment and/or high level of Moral judgment(?) in action(?) as well as in philosophical examination, you must "judge" this Bill character. For this you will probably need more information on Bill and none is given, making the whole process even more problematic then it really looks. But still your duty calls; What is your verdict ?
Bill must do his homework. Who convince others through rhetoric may safely be considered guilty. Only liars need to convince.
Dear Judge: Okay. I stopped going to Church now. And, I started jogging and eating in moderation. I stopped Judging on my own at home, paid off all my credit cards (just use debit card now, and AMEX = technically not credit). I still work for a company which is heavily in debt, and has shareholders, but it would jeopardize my marriage (not to mention perhaps my life...wife gets out of control sometimes) to just quit this now. I am reading GEB...I am trying very hard to follow the right path.
One thing, I promise not to ask again, "1Are you sure about all this stuff? I mean, 2 is it possible that you could be, er, mistaken?" I know, I know, the vrille, but I just had to ask one more time.
a devotee and follower
1Yes. 2 No.
Dear Judge: Regarding eschatological verdict: Ouch, this is bad news for those of us who've been counting on a little afterlife excitement. What steps may we take to get the immortality? Something to do spiritually, or are we talking deep freeze, or eating a lot of preservative laden Doritos, time travel...what!!!??? I gots to know, Judge.
Physical exercise (running recommended), moderate food intake, consider food supplements (effect unproven yet though), cyborgism when available. See HEAVEN.COM for example. Also the Transhumanism Society.
Dear Judge: Although I'm still recovering from the shock of seeing Your Will questioned by the upstart infidel #11, it occurs to me that perhaps we do squander the wisdom of the Quort, with silly questions about lending, hypothetical hostage situations, and so. I would like to know, frankly, what is going to happen to me when I die? I mean, should I be practicing Hinduism? Should I be at a Holy Roller tent revival today (Sunday)? Should I be sending cash to my favorite TV Evangelist? Should I be kneeling before a graven image of Douglas Hofstadter? Catholic? Agnostic? Atheist? A Democrat?
What happens to us when we die?
I'll ask more, if your Judgement loses me. The simplicity and power of your verdicts are sometimes overwhelming.
Awareness ends and we cease to exist. If this is undesirable, immortality measures may be taken to prevent death.
This is not as much a case as a question, but I consider it to be a rather intriguing question : How can you justify one being to be able to judge over another being ? And ny what right does that one being judge the other being ?
By right of born wrongly and absolute sense of justice; by right of undergone lifelong torture. Do not try judging at home; leave to the chosen one. And chosen you have.
Smoker has cancer and sues tobacco manufacturer for compensation. How would Judge Q. rule?
Compensation there will be; for the non-smoking relatives, friends and colleagues of smoker, who have always been forced to inhale his smoke. And did NOT choose to do so. Compensation will be paid by smoker and manufacturer, 50% each.
Judge Q: (Referencing Rulings 8 and 5) While babbling, Polonius did spew forth some good advice: "Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loseth both itself and friend. And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry." I essentially agree, and when I loan money, my guiding principle is that the answer to the question, "Can I live with both the emotional and financial consequences of not being repaid?" must be affirmative.
It is impossible, however, for me to know whether I concur with the court's ruling on number 8. The ruling on 5 is understandable. The ruling on 8 is understandable, if taken in the strict context of the lottery. If not, then Judge Q must place no value on: Ideas, Labor, Existing Advantage or Position.
1 Does ruling #8 mean that a bank that has financed (let's say 100% financed for sake of hypothetical) the start-up of a business should be repaid with interest, and further is entitled to all of the profits of that business for all time? If so, it follows that either A. The ideas of the individuals in that business and the efforts of those in that business did not contribute to the profits or B. Ideas/ingenuity and labor have no value in the mind of the Court. Since it is patently clear that ideas and labor (and other things not specified here - Location, Position/Timing, et al) do contribute to the profit and can not be done without, it follows that the Court places no value on these. The Court may not like lending for one reason or the other, in the spirit of Polonius. So be it, and I agree.
6 But, I say the Court must explain itself more fully.
2 Does the Court say that since it is "impossible" to determine which component of profit devolves from any amount of loaned money; that all profit aided by loaned funds goes to the lender?
3 How's about if there are multiple lenders?
4 How's about when there is a contract - which there usually is which specifies distribution of profits/repayment of principle and interest?
5 How's about speculators who invest? Actually, Judge, it is in fact the speculators who take down most of the initial profits of a business in a Venture Capital setting.
1 Yes. 2 No. 3 Divide profit. 4 Judge Q.'s ruling prevails. 5 Same as for lenders.
6 Goal of these rulings is to end lending/borrowing/speculating altogether. No man will borrow to start a business if all profit goes to lender/speculator.
In the early days of aviation, many died in a "vrille" - a corkscrew-shaped fall from which it was impossible to escape. Then someone discovered one could escape by steering along with the corkscrew, rather than against it.
In respect to case 5:
what do you think about bank loans - should any profit be also returned?
DEAR JUDGE: An eleven year-old female "ran away" with her twenty-eight year-old male teacher. They were "caught" in Las Vegas. The man is now in a lot of trouble--transporting a minor across state lines and other things. The 11-year old girl, however, now in a custody of sorts, continues to claim emphatically and apparantly of her own free will that she loves this man. She wants no harm to come to him, and wants to be with him.
Has harm been done? To whom? Punishment?
No harm done. No punishment for the girl. Punishment for the man only if the girl is mentally a child. If girl is mentally mature and of adult intelligence, no punishment.
A hypothetical case, Judge Q. : A wants to murder B. A gets himself a gun in full working order, learns to use it, loads it, puts it to B's head and pulls the trigger. He know's what he's doing and is predetermined to kill B. If the gun fails to go off, is he guilty? And of what?
Guilty of murder. That the victim survives by chance is irrelevant with respect to guilt. All needed deeds have been done by culprit, murder has been committed. He will go to the chair, and as his victim only survived by technical failure, the culprit will only escape death in the event the chair fails.
Last month I was broke and borrowed $300 from a friend. Without him knowing I bought lottery tickets. One of them drew a $5000 prize; I told my friend and promised him to pay back his 300 as soon I get the prize. But he's not happy, he wants half the prize. I say that's complete crap as I'm the only one who took any risk by playing the lottery. How now, Judge Q. ?
Your friend is more than right, you must pay him the full $5000 AND the original $300. He DID take risk by lending you money; the risk that you might not pay it back or abuse it.
Borrowing money is doubtful business; you never know who really owns it. When profit is made by gambling, speculating or investing with borrowed money, it is logically impossible to determine the owner of the profit. Existing law in this field is incorrect. Current practice is the borrowers get to keep the profit, but this is unfair. They don't take any risk at all, as the money they invest isn't theirs in the first place. In the event of loss, the lenders are the only ones who really suffer, as they don't get their money back. All risk is run by the lenders, while the borrowers are mere parasites.
The only practical solution for this phenomenon is to rule such that all profit made with borrowed money belongs to the lender, who must get the original borrowed amount back as well. This will discourage abuse of borrowed money and eventually end borrowing itself.
A group of teenagers is together doing heroine. They are all there by choice, and they all participate. One of the teenagers dies of an overdose. The rest are charged and sentenced to 20 years to life for supplying the drugs that contributed to the death. Do you believe this is a fair sentence?
The parents of that child believe the verdict is fair, but they never mentioned if they would feel the same way had it been another kid who had died and THEIR kid had been the one sentenced.
How does Supreme Judge rule?
This is not a fair sentence, provided they indeed participated by choice. If so, the victim is responsible for own death and no one is to be punished.
If the drugs had been forced upon the victim, those who did the forcing would be guilty and a death sentence would be in place. Likely this would not be the whole group. Usually there are one or two dominant figures in such a group; those should be killed, and their organs used for transplantation.
Dear Judge Q: Chaos has absorbed Verdict #2. Fabulous!! Indeed, the Court's Wisdom graces US with a precise distillation of Universal Truth, unfettered by and independent of "law, culture, and religion". The not so enlightened, however, must know the answer to two final questions surrounding abortion:
1 What constitutes Murder?
2 What constitutes Awareness?
Respectfully: The Chaos.
1 A verdict "guilty of Murder" by Q.
2 The being aware that one - or anything - exists.
Note: Gödel has shown no formal system can decide all possible propositions. For ethics, this means no formal definition of Murder is valid for all possible cases. The borderline cases must be decided individually by Q. Thus the fractalized borders of justice are explored and mapped as we proceed.
Dear Judge Q : Aha! Case #1 neatly dispatched, with a dash of panache and a sprinkle of chutzpah! Justice done swiftly and with decision, bravissimo!! Now, Chaos brings yet another moral conundrum before the Court. It seeks guidance on what is called “Right to Life”, or the “Abortion Issue”. See Specific Case A.
1 When is a new human life established?
2 Does the mother of an unborn have right to end such life, if established?
A student of certain laws promulgated in “Crime and Sentence” and presumed correct answers to TFSOJ, the Chaos thinks:
1. Who murders, disclaims his right to life.
Unfortunately for Chaos, its understanding of “murder” is bound-up in legality. The primary Merriam Webster definition of verb “murder” is: “to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Yikes!! What then is lawful? Most likely Merriam thinks “lawful” to be whatever is the law of the land. We know, however, that the Court disagrees with the laws of the land and has a pure view. Certainly this is the purpose of having such a Supreme Court Over the United Universes. Chaos does not, however, claim to know Q’s understanding of the term “murder”, and thus is not so presumptuous as to attempt construction of a self-answering inquiry.
Facts of Specific Case A:
1. Woman is pregnant as a result of unforced, and unprotected sexual intercourse for purposes of pleasure.
2. Woman is of average intellect, no significant presence of criminal genes, mentally sound.
3. Woman obtains a legal abortion.
4. Woman is at no health risk, and has resources to care for a child.
Chaos seeks ruling. Is the woman guilty of any crime? If so, what is punishment?
1 When awareness starts.
Meaning of "Murder" is independent of law, culture and religion.
Case A: Woman is guilty of murder only if awareness was ended. If so, punishment is death.
DEAR JUDGE Q. :
THE ALPHA BADS, A COTERIE OF ULTA-NASTIES HELD MOTHER QOYMANS AT GUNPOINT. THE WORST OF THE LOT THEN PUT IT TO SON QAUL, COMPLETELY BESIDE HIMSELF LOOKING ON, "TELL YOUR MOTHER YOU WISH HER DEAD AND WE WILL FREE HER - REFUSE, AND WE WILL SNUFF HER."
SON QAUL SAYS, I CANNOT TELL A LIE, I DO NOT HATE MY MOTHER. - BANG! MOTHER Q. IS BLOWN AWAY. IS SON QAUL THE LEAST BIT RESPONSIBLE FOR MOTHER Q'S DEMISE?
No. Only Alpha Bads are responsible. Death by torture.
Note that even if Q. had satisfied their demand, this would not be a lie as it would have been under force (threat with violence). Words spoken under force are no utterance of the speaker and therefore meaningless and never a lie. However, Alpha Bads would still be guilty as in previous paragraph and receive same penalty.