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.
this is a horrible question, i mean, how can you judge morals when its a life or death scenario. you can put all your philosophy into it, but you still have no clue what you would do....
This is a pretty odd question. It's not entirely clear what you're even asking. Morally culpable of killing him? Or of trying to kill him? And then your clarification really engages all of them: who's done something morally bad?
Well, morals all depends on one's system... but just to keep things a bit reasonable, let's say "moral" is just "gold rule: do unto others as I want them to do to me." I.E. share the water, already.
Culpable of murder: Well, only one person's actions directly led to D's death. so it would be the one who leaked the bag. Culpable of attempted murder: The poisoner. Perhaps as well D himself for withholding life-saving water. But then, those are not the same question, as I said above. If all you want to know is "Who is directly responsible for D's death," the answer is pretty straight forward. If you want to know "Who is a bad person," it would seem in "Golden Rule World" that they all are.
As far as which was worse: who cares? We aren't talking legal, right? So no one is here to talk about which jerk stays longer in jail. Morally, as far as "doing something wrong," they are both wrong. Both had the intent to kill someone. Both made the attempt to kill someone. The fact that their intents and attempts got all tangled up should not have an impact on how bad they are. As I see it, moral badness is not just about result, but intent. Legal badness is more about result, but you said we weren't talking about that.
Morals are nonexistent. Trying to argue it like math is useless.
Because morals are entirely of human construction, therefore they cannot possibly be similar the innate logic of mathematics, which is a force that has always existed and was in no way invented by humans.
Morals exist in the same way math does. A set of rules designed by humans to represent reality. The exact same way.
I don't believe their moral responsibility has much to do with the results. They both intended to kill. Intent is what matters, I think.
Who is stupid enough to poison or poke a hole in the only canteen of water around for miles
I wanted to bring this up myself and wasn't surprised to see I was beaten to it. I can understand that you just wanted to make up an example, but using a purely hypothetical situation without a single shred of plausibility can't provide you with answers which you wouldn't expect yourself. In this case, I'd say they're all morally guilty, but in the eyes of the law Mike has attempted murder, and Ryan murder. But I can't overcome the fact that no am mount of anger or jealousy could overcome the basic survival instinct. It is that same instinct that could drive those people into murder in the first place. Here are some real moral dilemmas in the case where the two kill Derek to get the water:
Is it wrong for Derek to figure that only one of them can survive on the amount of water they have? Is it wrong for Ryan and Mike for killing Derek in order to get that water, thus increasing their personal chances of survival (from 0), but lowering the chance that any would survive? Would the killing stop there, or would Ryan and Mike now fight to the death over the water? Is it wrong to value your existence more than another ones?
Personally, I'd give my life for a friend. But not for a prick.
So, just to be clear, none of us would want to be friends with any of these guys.
Here's the real crux of the thought experiment:
1) Person A tried to kill person C, but was thwarted by the acts of person B.
2) Person B ended up causing the death of C, although unknowingly extending C's life by quite some time.
If we just read statement (1), it would look like B is a hero - saving the life of C and thwarting A's efforts to kill C. That is, until we learn the circumstances of B saving C's life.
Thought experiments like this aren't meant to have "correct" answers. I mean, there are certainly bad answers, but among the "good" ones you can see what kind of moral theory (or theories) you're committed to. I'm a little surprised by the response of how ridiculous or impractical this situation is. Which is why I suggest maybe we just think about it in more general terms.
So, just to be clear, none of us would want to be friends with any of these guys.
I'm up fer tha'. Sorry fer jumpin' on the thread so late though
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?
So wait. The autopsy report concludes that Derek died of thirst, not poison?
Scenario One:
"Yo Ryan! C'mere!"
"Wussup?"
"That Derek fella isn't sharing his water! This is bull! I'm thirsty over here!"
"Yeah me too! We need to do something about this!"
"I'll poison his water so none of us gets the water and he dies with us!"
"Why not just ta--"
"That's not part of the problem!"
...
"MMM! This water tastes goo--*PLOP*
Scenario 2: Mike: "Curses. That Derek fella isn't sharing his water. This is bull, I'm thirsty over here! I'm going to go poison his water while he's not looking! *poisons*
Ryan: "Curses. That Derek fella isn't sharing his water. This is bull, I'm thirsty over here! I'm going to go poke his canteen so he won't get any either!" *pokes canteen*
Derek: "Dammit Ryan, you poked my canteen! Now all of us will die of thirst!"
It seems to me without this Ryan fellow, Derek would have suffered when he first took a drink of that poisoned water, making him the one at fault. Put Ryan into the equation, Derek would have a max of 3 days left to live afterwards. He has extended his life farther than what poison would have given Derek, so he would be branded the hero. I could go on to say that Derek would have lived beyond the other two's life because he would have been the only one with water, but that's not part of the problem. Although both were involved with Derek's death, Ryan is deemed the hero because he extended his life by three days.
1) Person A tried to kill person C, but was thwarted by the acts of person B.
2) Person B ended up causing the death of C, although unknowingly extending C's life by quite some time
It's OK to generalize, but now it's not put clearly that "the acts of person B" were homicidal in nature. Putting that minor detail aside, without a specific context I'd say that any person who is performing acts with their goal being murder is morally reprehensible at least. If you're bothered by the possible "heroism" of person B's life-extending actions, keep in mind that he might have just prolonged the suffering of person C. Neither A or B could be considered as good here, because their intention wasn't such. In a different situation that same person A (or B) could be alone with C, and then A (B) would be directly responsible for murder. On the moral plane the same person is the same person no matter in which situation you put it. A bad person might or might not do a bad thing depending on the situation, but it's not any less bad at it's core, only it's evil less apparent in one case than the other. However, due to the ability of humans to change their nature, we can't punish people for "seeming to be evil", because they might turn good eventually. We punish based on acts, and to return to the original problem, both the acts of A and B were done in an attempt of murder, thus both are guilty. As for the level of punishment, person B would probably get punished for murder, while A would only get attempted murder. Person A got lucky on this one, luck he didn't deserve.
Person A poisoned Person Cs water with the intent of killing Person C. Person B drained Person Cs water causing Person C to die of dehydration.
To my mind Person A is the most morally culpable of murder as his actions had a direct motive toward a direct result.
Person B is also morally culpable, however less so in that the death of Person C, while obviously a possibility prior to his actions, was not guaranteed, as was the case with Person A.
(I put it into A, B, C terms for ease of understanding for the readers of this. Nice thought experiment BTW moegreche I liked this one.)
