Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


The Appropriate Limits of Legal Speech P.1

   
1) There is no possible good outcome from firing a rifle at a persons head
2) A rifle has no will. A person does. Telling someone that b is having an affair is simply *not* the same as firing a rifle. If you honestly believe it is then you are either a psychopath who is incapable of seing the humanity in other people or a sevely delused solopsist who must wonder what he is doing arguing with himself on this forum. or possibly an extreem case of misanthopism where you hate everyone so much you deny them their humanity.
In any case, the two are simply not equivelent. When you pull the trigger on a rifle there is no chance the rifle will feel sorry for the person you are aiming at and take them out to dinner.

Now if you drug someone into unconciousness and drag them arround to make their body go through the motions of killing another person *that* would be akin to using a rifle, in which case you are most definitely guilty, whether you succeeded in killing them or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
2) A rifle has no will. A person does. Telling someone that b is having an affair is simply *not* the same as firing a rifle.
Agreed. Telling someone that B is having an affair can be no more than aiming the rifle. Yes, you have the intention of killing B, and by setting B up in this fashion you are *deliberately* acting in a fashion that has an increased likelihood of bringing about the death of B, but unless that intention can be proven in a court of law, you will probably be seen just as a malicious person (or stupid). Now, if there's a paper trail that proves you told them in an attempt to make them murder B in a fit of rage...
And yes, ethically, you are guilty of conspiracy to murder, regardless of what the court says. You had the intention and you acted so as to bring about the result, even if you used someone else to do it. Ethically yes, legally... not necessarily. Burden of proof.

So you are saying that if you were C and a told you that your wife b was having an affair that you would have no recourse but to kill her?
Or are only some people human?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
So you are saying that if you were C and a told you that your wife b was having an affair that you would have no recourse but to kill her?
Or are only some people human?
Oh, I wouldn't do it. But in the original, C was stated as being a person who was said to be very likely to kill his partner if it was found out they had been having an affair. If that was a known fact, that C would kill B, then C could be treated like a loaded rifle. A aims it with his proof of B's affair, and waits for the hammer to fall...
Now, if C was not a violent psychopath, then the argument would go in a very different direction. But I was basing the argument on the original, or, at least, my interpretation of the original.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
1) There is no possible good outcome from firing a rifle at a persons head
Sure there is, you might hit a mosquito passing by or a bullet gets stuck in just the right portion of that persons brain and cure him from Parkinson. Or, more realistically, the rifle might backfire, killing the person attempting the murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
2) A rifle has no will. A person does. Telling someone that b is having an affair is simply *not* the same as firing a rifle. If you honestly believe it is then you are either a psychopath who is incapable of seing the humanity in other people or a sevely delused solopsist who must wonder what he is doing arguing with himself on this forum. or possibly an extreem case of misanthopism where you hate everyone so much you deny them their humanity.
You must be missing an option, because I'm neither a psychopath, nor a solopsist, nor misanthropic. Try again.

You still haven't answered on the situation where A feeds C aggravating drugs and makes sure C has a weapon available to do the killing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
or if the outcome was something other than what was intended.
This is not true. Just being 'different' than intended doesn't mean leading to proverbial heaven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
1) There is no possible good outcome from firing a rifle at a persons head
Splendid example! You might miss and hit their in the throat, instead. The outcome here is different from the intended one. Or rather, "the outcome was something other than what was intended", to use your wording. Do you still maintain it is 'the road to heaven'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
2) A rifle has no will. A person does. Telling someone that b is having an affair is simply *not* the same as firing a rifle. If you honestly believe it is then you are either a psychopath who is incapable of seing the humanity in other people or a sevely delused solopsist who must wonder what he is doing arguing with himself on this forum. or possibly an extreem case of misanthopism where you hate everyone so much you deny them their humanity.
In any case, the two are simply not equivelent. When you pull the trigger on a rifle there is no chance the rifle will feel sorry for the person you are aiming at and take them out to dinner.
Do you mean to imply, in all those misspelled personal attacks, that a person's behaviour is impossible to predict, guide, influence, or manipulate because they have a free will, and that any attempt to do so is equivalent to being a sociopath?

Quote:
Do you mean to imply, in all those misspelled personal attacks, that a person's behaviour is impossible to predict, guide, influence, or manipulate because they have a free will, and that any attempt to do so is equivalent to being a sociopath?
close. I am saying that a person's behavior is impossible to predict because they have free will, and any assumption that they are equivilent to an inanimate object in terms of the moral culpability of a person attempting to persuade them through indirect means is the assumption of a psychopath, misanthrope, or solipsist.

Quote:
Oh, I wouldn't do it. But in the original, C was stated as being a person who was said to be very likely to kill his partner if it was found out they had been having an affair. If that was a known fact, that C would kill B, then C could be treated like a loaded rifle
which is in short "no, i wouldn't do it, because i have free will, but C doesn't have free will and we know he will kill B"
in which case C is not a person, but an object, as programable as a computer, with predictable outcomes. The assumption destroys the question because *either* c is a person *or* he has lacks the ability to decide whether or not to kill B. Both is not a real option, except to a sociopath, solipsist, or misanthrope. To be fair there may be other mental illnesses which could result in the same conclusion...

Consider the response above

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
close. I am saying that a person's behavior is impossible to predict because they have free will, and any assumption that they are equivilent to an inanimate object in terms of the moral culpability of a person attempting to persuade them through indirect means is the assumption of a psychopath, misanthrope, or solipsist.
So then, if I would have a child and raise it with the core idea that all other humans are inferior to us and deserve to be killed, as well as provide it with the skills to murder and get away with it, I would, in your eyes, hold no culpability for any crimes committed by said child, because its behaviour would be impossible to predict?

Conversely, do you also claim that trying to teach a child kindness and morals as they grow up is useless because their "behavior is impossible to predict because they have free will"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
which is in short "no, i wouldn't do it, because i have free will, but C doesn't have free will and we know he will kill B"

No. No, it is not short for that. It's nothing like that. It's short for "no, I wouldn't do it, but C might because we're not the same person". Or do you claim that all people, because they have free ill, will act the exact same way in any situation?

Another example: some soldiers rape and kill half a village on a mission. Is the commanding officer not responsible, because these soldiers have free will?

Or this one: A wants B dead and knows B is a police spy who works undercover with the mafia. A tells the mafia about this, after which the mafia tortures B to dead. Is A guilty?

And then there is the one with the aggravating drugs, but you seem to be persistently ignoring that one.

No, because I clearly said
Quote:
to persuade them through indirect means
this is akin to me saying that if you drop a grenade down a siezmic fault any earthquake which corresponds is coincidental and you responding by aserting that I have said you can stick a nuke down a siezmic fault and detonate it with no impact. There is a *huge* difference between brainwashing someone throughout their formative years and mentioning that their wife is having an affair.
Now the Mafia example certainly carries more guilt (though it is still improbable, at least in the US, since the Mafia tend to avoid killing police), in that the relationship is ore inherantly hostile and you are counting on teh reactions of a demographic rather than an individual- the person A tells may not kill B, but it is more certain that *someone* C knows will do the killing (more so if B were a snitch than a cop)
I did answer the question regarding agravating drugs, you seemed to ignore my answer, which was essentially it depends on how the administration took place (does c buy drugs from A).
in the long view of every possible scenario you ight throw up, this is a complex issue and the more A does to pressure C into killing B, clearly the more culpible A is. I defined what i consider to be teh dividing line in terms of whether a actually *suggests* that C kill B, though your question regarding betrayal in an inherantly dangerous situation is also a good point *not addressed in the orriginal question*. Also if A tells c that B is a mole for the police A is already legally responsible. A is also responsible if they kidnap C's children and tell c they will kill the kids if C does not kill B, and so forth. My point is not that humans cannot be persuaded, my point is that "Hey your wife is sleeping arround on you" does not rise to the level of culpability even if we were able to determine intent, unless that ability to determine intent were equally available to A in order to predict C's reaction, in which case we are discussing teh moralit of mind reading spells as manipulation in a fantasy universe. At whic point we need to know if A, B, and C are PCs or NPC because everyone knows it is not immoral to kill NPCs.

And frankly all te divergent "what ifs" on this conversation are becoming absurd.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status