# Which is more saddening? Which is more wrong? (Read before voting pls)



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Thanks everyone who has voted/replied thus far! :happy: Don't feel ashamed/bad/etc. about your responses. There's *no wrong answer* to this. I was simply curious. Actually, I do take that back. There is a wrong answer. _Any answer where you don't disclose your personality type is unhelpful._ Please, please put your type (even if you don't know your MBTI, you can put your Socionics or Enneagram or even just top two functions) if it isn't in your signature.

Also, I apologize to all who are sensitive and feel bad thinking about these types of things. (It's unpleasant to me too. :sad It's just the nature of the discussion requires realistic examples that would (hopefully) encite strong emotions/thoughts.

Oh lastly, I tried to be comprehensive with the poll but realize now that I left some choices out. I'm sorry. I just couldn't foresee every possible reaction you guys might have. (I blame my inferior Ne. :tongue


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

INTJ

The first example would not be more saddening exactly if it befell someone vulnerable (I likely wouldn't feel sad at all unless I knew the victim), but, assuming the victim died, that situation would be slightly more _disturbing_ because the child hadn't had the opportunity to live much. 

I wouldn't feel much different about an elderly or disabled person getting hit, especially if the victim survived, but I probably would be a bit more worried if the victim had been in delicate health before the accident.

I fail to see how anyone could consider negligent driving more _wrong_ because of the victim. Hitting someone was an accident; the driver didn't choose the victim. Wrongness is based on intent, or at least mostly based on intent.

In the case of a child, I possibly would feel a bit sad about the torture situation, but, again, it would be more disturbing than sad. I doubt that I'd find the crime more wrong if perpetrated on a "vulnerable" person; but if I did, it would depend somewhat on the perpetrator's intent. Did the perp deliberately choose a child or elderly person, or just grab the nearest available victim? What was the reason behind the choice of victim?


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

INFP

Going simply by what would make me saddest... Well in the first situation no, it wouldn't make me sadder if it were someone more vulnerable, etc. These things make me sad no matter who the victim. In the second situation, I have to say it would _definitely_ make me sadder if it were an animal being tortured. I mean the animal has no idea why you are doing this, their vulnerability would be so crushing. I'm so glad China is outlawing ivory hunting.

The second situation seems worse to me. It's purposeful torture, not an accident.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

My thinking is #2 is worse either way than #1, because it was intentional. (Actually, intentionality is factored into severity of a crime, e.g. involuntary manslaughter gets a lesser sentence than intentional...of course outcome still qualifies it as a crime though ). #1 is equally wrong/worse, since the perp did not have a say in whether they were causing harm to someone more vulnerable or not. But it would be more saddening just because they are even more defenseless. (Though it isn't drastically sadder since most adults that aren't vulnerable would probably be pretty defenseless anyway.. it's just sad that the vulnerable victim doesn't even get a glimpse at a chance).

However, because #2 was intentional, I'd also say it is both worse and more sad if the victim was more vulnerable. It is saddening more on behalf of humanity that people like that exist and can consciously make such decisions. And of course it's worse ethically since it was knowingly done.

INTJ 5w6


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

In the case of a child:
1 is more saddening but not worst than an adult victim.
2 is both more saddening and worst then an adult victim.

In the case of 1, there's no intent targeting a specific victim. The child is more saddening, but you could actually argue that an accidental adult death could be worst because that adult is more likely to have have other people - children included - dependent upon him.
In the case of 2, there's intent, now with an adult there's some chance that it's retribution for something, which is probably not justified - considering the torture part - but has the potential for a silver lining of preventing more of whatever the retribution was for in the future.

In the case of an elderly or handicapped, neither are worst or more saddening. Whatever advantages in life the fully functioning adult might have had didn't factor into allowing them to avoid the situation in the first place, it doesn't make it a more "fair" death, and again, you can actually argue that the adult's death is worst because it could be more consequential to people in their lives.


----------



## gyogul (Jan 26, 2014)

The incompetence of the driver leading to someone's death is frustrating, not the child/(disabled) (wo)man being killed in itself. So their deaths aren't strikingly sad to me or "wrong", simply misfortunate that their lives were taken because of someone not paying attention on the road.

type: not sure, you can look at the averages in my signature but I'm some IxTx (sans ISTP) type


----------

