So I have a pretty well known thought experiment. You could consider a riddle, but I'm not sure it technically classifies: I am going to alter it very slightly from its original wording for ease of understanding and to facilitate discussion.
Three men, Derek, Mike, and Ryan are walking in the desert. Mike and Ryan start to hate Derek because he was the only one with water - and he wasn't sharing. So much so, in fact, that they start to think about killing him. Without any consultation, Mike decides to poison Derek's water canteen. One drink would kill him. Shortly after that, Ryan poked a hole Dereks (now poisoned) water bag, thinking that he will just die of thirst in the desert, just like the rest of them. Now let's say that Derek did, in fact, die of thirst in the desert. With only Mike and Ryan left, who is guilty of Derek's death?
And just to keep it fun, lets leave out precedent setting cases and as much leagal-ese as possible. We can think of it with these options:
1) Mike morally culpable because he put poison in Derek's water. - the worry is that he didn't die from injesting point
2) Ryan is morally culpable because his actions directly led to Derek's death. - but he actually prolonged Derek's life by keeping him from drinking the poisoned water
So we have 3 things to assess for Mike and Ryan: 1) who (if anyone) is morally culpable? 2) who, if anyone can be morally praised for their actions? 3) who (if anyone) is simply morally blameless - neither deserving of blame or praise?
Remember, this is more about the philosophy of the problem. Both parties, for example, of attempted murder. But someone did murder him.
The best responses will be those that give the moral status of the two agents in this through experiment. Tell what they're moral blameworthiness is and explain.
Hm, this is very interesting. I will respond. But be warned, this will NOT be a very well thought out, intelligent reply. In fact, I'm not even going to swear to its coherency. It's almost midnight, I'm sleepy, and I'm just bored, so don't expect a doctoral thesis.
Agent 1: Derek Crime: Attempted negligent homicide. Explanation: Obviously, Mike, Ryan, and Derek were all in the desert, correct? And so, if Derek was the only one with water, and he wasn't sharing, then he would be directly responsible for their deaths by dehydration if they did die, which they would have had they not killed him(or maybe they did). Regardless, even Derek, the victim, is guilty of this. I say second degree murder because it's not manslaughter(being that he obviously could have prevented their theoretical deaths by sharing his water), it's not third degree because obviously it was not an act of passion, however it was not first degree murder because never was it his intention to actually kill them, so it could not have been premeditated. It could not be second degree murder because he was not doing it in an act of passion or intentionally, it was just that he was being selfish, and I don't classify that as an act of passion. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that it must have been attempted negligent homicide. He did not mean to, but he did not take measures that could have prevented their death(like sharing his water), however he died before they did. That's my thought thus far...I might review the others later, I might not. Later!
ah, but that would only have made him die faster, having a only a third of the water for himself, there is no law that makes you kill yourself for others. if ryan or mike were a child, or a woman, it would be dereks moral responsibility to share or even give the water to them, but as they are all three men, of about the same age, (im assuming) derek, in my opinion is not guilty of anything but saving himself. after all a good scout is always prepared -)
now for the guilty party. mike would be more guilty of murder, but alas, he did not succeed in his attempt. therefore he can only be prosecuted with attempted murder, but ryan on the other hand, performed actions which directly resulted in dereks untimely demise, which was probably only a couple hours after he ended up dying anyway. but i digress:
derek = although selfish, is an innocent victim
mike = as the poison did not result in dereks death, he too is innocent of murder
ryan = he is a bad boy and needs to be spanked, hard. he killed derek, if he was smart, he would have killed mike before mike poisoned the water, and then killed derek with his bare hands, keeping all the water to himself, HAHAHAHAH.
"And just to keep it fun, lets leave out precedent setting cases and as much leagal-ese as possible. We can think of it with these options:"
So consider first and second degree murder and all that, not so much the fun part. In fact, many states don't recognize degrees of murder (like mine). I want us to think about this from a purely ethical standpoint. Who carries the most moral blame here? Most people say that Ryan is the most morally culpable (since Derek's death was a result of Ryan's actions), but his actions actually kept Derek alive for a bit longer - even though he didn't know what he was doing would have that particular effect.
Either answer, I think, leads to some interesting conclusions. But I think some more discussion here would be beneficial. Just remember to try to keep legal terms out of this. Ultimately, I'm not even sure they're applicable in this presentation.
I believe that in this situation Ryan would be the culprit simply because his actions lead directly to the death of Derek; that is Derek died as a result of Ryan's actions not Mike's. I'm not sure how to extend my answer as of now so I'll wait for more posts to build it up a bit.
Morally responsible? Both of them are. They both did something that would have killed him. Its like one of them shooting him in the stomach then the other shooting him in the head. Since you don't want the law in this, its both there fault.
Absolutely, they're both just awful people. I mean, we don't know the circumstances behind this, but you'd think they would just knock him out and take his water. But either way, both still do deserve moral blame. But who deserves the moral blame for his death?
We could say that Mike is the more blameworthy because he fully intended to kill Derek. But if Derek didn't die of poison, can we rightfully say that he should suffer the most blame? Ryan, on the other hand, had a plan to kill Derek. He executed this plan (by slitting open Derek's water container), and it was successful - it had the desired consequences. Yet, if he hadn't done it, Derek would have died much sooner.
Here it is in the abstract:
Who has more moral culpability, relative to their actions against C, A or B?
A formed a plan to kill C, executed said plan but, for reasons he did not foresee, was not successful with his plan. B formed a plan to kill C, executed said plan and was successful. For reasons he did not realize, his actions thwarted A's plan and allowed C to live a bit longer.
So which is worse? A) intentionally doing something bad, but having the plan not work
or
B)intentionally doing something, while simultaneously and unknowingly doing something good.
Mike is the most guilty. When Mike poisoned Derek's water bottle, he doomed Derek to die. Think about: if Ryan had not slashed the bottle, Derek would have died anyway.
Sure, Ryans actions directly led to derek's death. But Derek already was 100 percent certain to die earlier than he would have without any interference.
They're all responsible- everyone destroyed another's chance at life - Derek is making the others die of thirst, Mike destroyed their only chance at life, and Ryan made death certain, as well as giving them all depression and hating each other, making it impossible to get out of the desert.
Either way I hope these idiots stay in the desert and don't live to destroy rather than steal other people's things. Why did they destroy their only chance at life???
Who is stupid enough to poison or poke a hole in the only canteen of water around for miles but lets say they are mentally retarded it would be Ryan because he made the one move that killed Derek, If a hole wasn't poked in the canteen then it would be Mike.
adjective concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
noun 1 a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, piece of information, or an experience. 2 (morals)a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable.
So we have 3 things to assess for Mike and Ryan: 1) who (if anyone) is morally culpable? 2) who, if anyone can be morally praised for their actions? 3) who (if anyone) is simply morally blameless - neither deserving of blame or praise?
1 Ryan sealed everyone's fate with punching a hole in the canteen, water bag, etc. He is culpable in this scenario.
2 Conversely, all three are guilty of a total lack of morals. No ones actions are worthy of praising. The one with the water, I can't recall his name, could have easily rationed the water. Desperate people do desperate things, as someone once said that's played out in this example. The one with the water knew he was passing judgment on the other two and sentencing them to death by not sharing.
3 I've eliminated this question because I claim that all three are to be blamed for being morally bankrupt.
