Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 I found it in Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 They both have a defence though, which is the interesting point I found. Person A can say he never poisoned the man because he didn't drink it, and Person B can say he didn't kill the man because he saved him from drinking poison. I'm no legal expert, but I think that they can both be convicted regardless, since the action of either one of them would lead to his death. (Especially if we design the scenario so that going back to town to resupply himself is not possible.) The second man, surely, cannot use this as a defence, since although he has prevented the victim from being poisoned, he has not given him any chance of actual survival. I could be wrong, but even if I am wrong, they can definitely both be jailed for attempted murder. If you poison someone's entire supply of water and he dies before drinking it, you have still tried to kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 But you would though wouldn't you? Hence see my above post about misadventure. We can remove that possibility, though, by framing the question to occur a week out from town, so that he can't get back to town for supplies before dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I found it in Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. That's not the bell it rang with me, but well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 The second man, surely, cannot use this as a defence, since although he has prevented the victim from being poisoned, he has not given him any chance of actual survival. But he could claim his act of murder was life-saving. By doing wrong, he saved the man's life. Can you murder a man and save his life in the same act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hence see my above post about misadventure. We can remove that possibility, though, by framing the question to occur a week out from town, so that he can't get back to town for supplies before dying. Ahhh yes you are right... My skim reading comes back to bite me on the bum. Dam! Thought I'd solved one of them Mensa puzzles there. Out of interest, how long in prison should the guilty party get? If at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazz2311 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 ..."............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 But he could claim his act of murder was life-saving. By doing wrong, he saved the man's life. I contend that he has not. He's replaced an immediate death by poisoning for a slower death by thirst. Sticking to the case where the explorer is on the outskirts of town and has ample opportunity to refill his water supply if only he knows it's empty, I still contend that the second man is guilty of murder; I would see that as no better than shooting someone in the head, and saying that it wasn't murder but suicide because the victim could have ducked to avoid the bullet. I don't know if the law would agree with me on this, but that is my own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sorry but in the OP, it doesn't say anything about a week later or a few days later. It's hypothetical, to make you think about good and bad. You don't get any points for pulling it apart with your common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It's hypothetical, to make you think about good and bad. You don't get any points for pulling it apart with your common sense. That was my fault more than his. I suggested making it a few days later to eliminate the possibility of claiming that it was misadventure. I see now that the whole point of the question is to ask, given that he could have refilled his water supply, has anybody committed murder or not? ...which means my suggestion was worse than pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.