Comments on: #146 Causal Paradox

By: Obscure

Obscure — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:59:18 +0000

Sorry to be tardy to the party.
It seemed worthwhile to mention: George pokes a hole in the canteen, thus removing a supply of fresh, life-saving, water – and by coincidence some poison.
George wanted to remove the water, and George removed the water. He also removed poison. Poisoned water is still water (delicious and life-saving), just with a solute in it. The life-saving water component of the poisoned water was still in the canteen before George acted. Supposing no hole had been poked, perhaps Ed could have decided to purify his water later on. We will never know, because George killed him before he had the chance.
Ed died because his body needed H2O molecules that weren’t there for him. George was directly responsible for removing the H2O molecules – the fact that he removed some CN- ions in the process is incidental to the fact that he removed the H2O molecules. If Ed had imbibed the poisoned water, he would have received his precious H2O and would not have died of dehydration – the fact that he WOULD have then died of poisoning does not change his actual cause of death.
Dehydration means whoever took away the H2O is responsible, and that’s George. The CN- molecules had nothing to do with anything, they were just along for the ride.

In the much cooler example of Magic Matt’s Lunch-to-Sand Transmogrification, Matt was the party responsible for removal of the lunch (rather than CP), and hence the direct cause of hunger – the disappearance of (sand-filled) lunchbox is coincidental to the disappearance of lunch.
If, for instance, Bob had drained the canteen, and then filled it entirely with mercury (or another pure liquid poison containing no trace of water), the Bob would be the one who removed ALL water from the canteen, thus causing the dehydration, regardless of whether a hole was poked.

By: chaospet

chaospet — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:03:25 +0000

Icarus: Will do, thanks!

By: IcarusRisen

IcarusRisen — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:02:29 +0000

Well if you need any help or advice about the area, let me know

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:03:02 +0000

The main tricky point is that Bob and George’s ignorance prevents us from simply charging them as accomplices.

1. Ed would have lived if neither action occurred.
2. Either action was sufficient to cause Ed’s death.
3. Both actions, together, were still sufficient to cause Ed’s death.
C: Ed is dead as a result of their actions. Charge both with murder.

So we have individual and joint sufficiency, actus reus and mens rea, and a result that would not have occurred without the acts. This seems to be enough to condemn both Bob and George of murder.
Of course, it’s easy to confuse our intuitions by talking about cause and individual responsibility. But I think individual and joint sufficiency means we can assign responsibility to both parties, regardless of our intuitional confusions about individual causation.

By: chaospet

chaospet — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:07:41 +0000

“No, the cause is the hole knocked in his canteen, rendering it unusable.”

I don’t think it matters if the canteen is usable or not. I think we are supposed to be imagining that canteen slowly leaks and Ed doesn’t discover it is empty until much later and he is in the desert, where the empty canteen is useless whether it has a hole or not. But for the sake of clarity, let’s imagine George empties it without damaging it.

“In this story, though, you’re guilty of attempted hungermongering.”

Precisely. I’m guilty of ATTEMPTED hungermongering because I tried to take away your food and failed. And George (like Bob) is only guilty of ATTEMPTED murder (via thirstmongering) because he tried to take away Ed’s viable drinking water and failed (again, because there was no viable drinking water).

What I think might be driving the intuition that George does cause Ed to die of thirst is the fact that Ed would not have died of thirst if he had drank the poison. So granted, George’s act of poking a hole in the canteen (or emptying it) is a necessary condition for Ed to die of thirst. But it still is not the cause. Again, to CAUSE Ed to die of thirst, George would have to deny Ed access to viable drinking water, and George simply failed to do that. There was no viable drinking water in Ed’s canteen. If Ed had unwittingly been carrying a bomb, removing the bomb would also be a necessary condition for Ed to die of thirst. But we would not (I don’t think) say that the person who removed the bomb from Ed’s backpack caused Ed to die of thirst.