Trump Believes He is Starring in the Second Season of an Apprentice Spinoff

[OngBonga]

It is a moral defence though, it's called "mitigating circumstances". If it's the first offence, if you can convince a judge that it was an out-of-character lack of judgement, that you have regrets, and assuming you didn't actually crash, then he will show leniency. So yes, it's a legal defence.

As for a moral defence... ask yourself, would you find it easier to forgive someone who wronged you as a result of a momentry lack of judgement, compared to someone who coldly set out to wrong you?

"Sorry I fucked up" is a moral defence if it's sincere.

[Poopadoop]

It is a moral defence though, it's called "mitigating circumstances". If it's the first offence, if you can convince a judge that it was an out-of-character lack of judgement, that you have regrets, and assuming you didn't actually crash, then he will show leniency. So yes, it's a legal defence.

Leniency is not the same as saying what you did is moral. I'm also not convinced that in the particular scenario you outlined, a judge has ever accepted such a defense. But let's say they did: your defense is one of mitigation, it's not a denial of moral responsibility.

As for a moral defence... ask yourself, would you find it easier to forgive someone who wronged you as a result of a momentry lack of judgement, compared to someone who coldly set out to wrong you?

"Sorry I fucked up" is a moral defence if it's sincere.

It depends on the level of harm that was done. If they had a 'momentary lack of judgement' as you call it, got pissed and ran over my kid, and said 'sorry i fucked up and killed your kid', no I wouldn't forgive them. If they accidentally bumped into me in a supermarket in a momentary lack of judgment, and no harm came of it, I would.

Conversely, if someone coldly set out to defame me at the same time as I was coldly setting out to defame them, as commonly happens in politics, I'd be inclined to accept that as an acknowledged if distasteful part of the game I'd entered into.

[OngBonga]

Leniency is not the same as saying what you did is moral. I'm also not convinced that in the particular scenario you outlined, a judge has ever accepted such a defense. But let's say they did: your defense is one of mitigation, it's not a denial of moral responsibility.

I never suggested that it absolves someone from responsibility, simply that a mistake due to a once-in-a-lifetime loss of control is less immoral than cold and calculated manipulation.

It depends on the level of harm that was done. If they had a 'momentary lack of judgement' as you call it, got pissed and ran over my kid, and said 'sorry i fucked up and killed your kid', no I wouldn't forgive them. If they accidentally bumped into me in a supermarket in a momentary lack of judgment, and no harm came of it, I would.

Sure, it's hard to argue this point. Then again, perhaps after many years, after the offender has served his sentence, if it were clear to me he was remorseful, that he was a changed man because of it... maybe. Who knows? But this is besides the point. The morality of an action isn't judged by the outcome. If two people drink five pints then gets into a car, with one running a kid over and the other getting home safely, they both comitted the same offence, they both acted with the same degree of immorality. It's just one had a terrible outcome.

Conversely, if someone coldly set out to defame me at the same time as I was coldly setting out to defame them, as commonly happens in politics, I'd be inclined to accept that as an acknowledged if distasteful part of the game I'd entered into.

Again, sure. But we're not talking about defamation, or at least I'm not. I'm talking about exploitation of victims.

[Poopadoop]

If two people drink five pints then gets into a car, with one running a kid over and the other getting home safely, they both comitted the same offence, they both acted with the same degree of immorality. It's just one had a terrible outcome.

That's right and it's bad luck. And I might have some empathy for the drunk driver who stupidly thought it couldn't happen to them, and eventually forgive them.

The thing to me is the drunk driver who didn't have the bad outcome is just as guilty and just as much of a cunt. The fact that the degree of negativity of the outcome is probabilistic (not every drunk driving episode gives rise to a death but the p(death) goes up with each episode), doesn't to me change the immorality of the act itself. It's kinda like saying 'eating asbestos sandwiches increases your risk of cancer, but if you don't end up with cancer, it wasn't foolish to do it'.

Again, sure. But we're not talking about defamation, or at least I'm not. I'm talking about exploitation of victims.

I'm not sure I go along with this use of the word 'exploitation' though. My sense is exploitation is a zero sum game where the exploiter A benefits while the exploitee B loses out. If B (the victim of s.a.) gets justice and A (the politician) benefits by winning an election, how is there exploitation going on?

Maybe I would accept the word 'capitalising on' over 'exploiting'. In that case I don't think the politician is doing anything wrong.