How would UPB be applied to something like negligent homicide?

[Kanith101]

I think the title says it all, how would UPB be applied to something like negligent homicide?

[dsayers]

Can you give an example of what you mean by negligent homicide? There are people that claim they weren't trying to get pregnant for example. They engaged in the behavior they knew could lead to pregnancy, making the claim of negligent false.

[Trotter332]

This was part of a discussion Kanith and I were having. The example we were using was "Say a man dying of thirst meets a vendor who has a bottle of water. He wants to sell that bottle of water to you for $1'000'000. He's not aggressing against you so NAP is technically followed, but you're a dick".

[dsayers]

One of those... ugh! These scenarios are absurd, they're meant to reconcile the irreconcilable, and their contemplation is not beneficial in any way.

 

Saying somebody NOT giving something (inaction) is homicide (action) is incredibly misleading. Unless the person with the water has abducted and/or restrained the person, in which case I'm pretty sure this violent action is a bit more important than a bottle of water even if it was given.

[shirgall]

If you knowingly do something that is reckless enough that is likely to cause the death or serious injury of another, it's force.

 

Look at the kinds of things that are considered "reckless endangerment": driving too fast for the conditions on a crowded road or residential neighborhood, target shooting with a population center as your backstop, giving dangerous drugs to someone whose medical history and allergies are unknown, throwing rocks at cars on the highway from an overpass...

[Wuzzums]

That example is not negligent homicide. Negligent homicide is not pulling the handbrake on your parked car which leads to someone getting run over. In this example you didn't do something you agreed to do which in that particular case led to someone getting killed. It's a very interesting question, how should we judge such people morally? Are they to be considered murderers? If so then we should look upon all people that neglect pulling the handbrake as murderers even though nobody else died because if we don't consider them murderers then basically we're punishing someone for having bad luck.

[Mister Mister]

The classic example is that a drunk driver kills a person.

 

I don't know if this is a problem for UPB as much as it is a problem for law, which would deal with these things on a case by case basis

[shirgall]

Manslaughter, otherwise known as negligent homicide, is reckless endangerment like what I described that does lead to someone's death. IF it could be considered reckless to be driving at too high a speed and it resulted in someone's death (whether or not you had a chance to pull a handbrake once the error had been detected) then it's manslaughter either way. If it could be proved that it was deliberate that you could have prevented a death but didn't, that's murder.

 

If you park on a steep, slippery hill it could be considered reckless to not turn your wheels into the curb and put on your handbrake... as a loose car careening down the hill is likely to kill or grievously harm someone if they got run over by the car. You're deep into "you should have known better" territory here.

Is this really the test case you're looking for?

 

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/02/prescribing-patients-the-drugs-they-want

[dsayers]

The classic example is that a drunk driver kills a person.

I don't find this example to be challenging either. Was the person drunk as the result of the voluntary action of imbibing substances that are known for being judgement impairing, the very reason they are imbibed? Then driving while drunk and killing somebody is perfectly equivalent to having sex and claiming you got pregnant by accident. You might as well hold a knife and spin around in a crowd. "I didn't MEAN to hurt anybody!" If you voluntarily engage in a behavior that you know will likely end in a particular outcome, you are not absolved of responsibility of that outcome.

 

Interestingly enough, THIS is why I think it's so important that we make the case about child abuse. Even if it's rejected out of hand, abusers can no longer claim they didn't know.

[bugzysegal]

I don't find this example to be challenging either. Was the person drunk as the result of the voluntary action of imbibing substances that are known for being judgement impairing, the very reason they are imbibed? Then driving while drunk and killing somebody is perfectly equivalent to having sex and claiming you got pregnant by accident. You might as well hold a knife and spin around in a crowd. "I didn't MEAN to hurt anybody!" If you voluntarily engage in a behavior that you know will likely end in a particular outcome, you are not absolved of responsibility of that outcome.

 

Interestingly enough, THIS is why I think it's so important that we make the case about child abuse. Even if it's rejected out of hand, abusers can no longer claim they didn't know.

Is it perfectly equivalent if you're on birth control? Something statistically shown to reduce your odds to 1 in a 100?

[Trotter332]

Is it perfectly equivalent if you're on birth control? Something statistically shown to reduce your odds to 1 in a 100?

There is still an outcome that results in the woman becoming pregnant. It is madness to assume 99% = 100%. 

[bugzysegal]

There is still an outcome that results in the woman becoming pregnant. It is madness to assume 99% = 100%. 

I never made implied it was 100%. dsayers talked about "engage(ing) in behavior you know will likely end in a particular outcome." We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving. We expose ourselves to any number of risks even sitting in a building, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for freak accidents. 

[dsayers]

We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving.

I'm glad you brought this up. As somebody who accepts the importance of precise language, the fact that car COLLISIONS are referred to as accidents is a pet peeve of mine. I accept that it is possible for a vehicle to break/malfunction in a way that would lead to a loss of control. That said, most collisions are the result of the operator not driving safely. Whether that be driving too fast for conditions, distracted, whatever. It sucks because things like the word "accident", State-mandated insurance, and traffic control devices actually lead to people driving with a diminished acceptance/acknowledgement of their own responsibility.

[bugzysegal]

I'm glad you brought this up. As somebody who accepts the importance of precise language, the fact that car COLLISIONS are referred to as accidents is a pet peeve of mine. I accept that it is possible for a vehicle to break/malfunction in a way that would lead to a loss of control. That said, most collisions are the result of the operator not driving safely. Whether that be driving too fast for conditions, distracted, whatever. It sucks because things like the word "accident", State-mandated insurance, and traffic control devices actually lead to people driving with a diminished acceptance/acknowledgement of their own responsibility.

Would two drivers, who take all reasonable measures to prevent collision, be comparable to sexual partners who use multiple forms of contraception? If yes, what about one form of hormonal birth control, known to be 99% effective? Not trying to slippery slope, just trying to see what you meant by "will likely end in a particular outcome" because that could mean anything from 51%-100%.  I suppose I should have just asked for a clarification.

[Des]

I never made implied it was 100%. dsayers talked about "engage(ing) in behavior you know will likely end in a particular outcome." We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving. We expose ourselves to any number of risks even sitting in a building, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for freak accidents. 

If you fly to Tokyo today and sit in a tall building there, and it collapses on you in an earthquake: do you have zero responsibility for what happened to you, or enough responsibility that you could acknowledge some responsibility for your decisions prior to the event?

[bugzysegal]

If you fly to Tokyo today and sit in a tall building there, and it collapses on you in an earthquake: do you have zero responsibility for what happened to you, or enough responsibility that you could acknowledge some responsibility for your decisions prior to the event?

If there are not structural defects in the building known to the public, the risk taken and responsibility acquired are negligible. Bad stuff happens frequently, and sometimes its no particular person's fault, just a matter of statistics.No one can choose to live their lives free of any risks. We must sort through which ones are significant and makes decisions about them, weighing benefits no? I think the risks associated with "safe sex" are similarly negligible. 

[Des]

If there are not structural defects in the building known to the public, the risk taken and responsibility acquired are negligible. Bad stuff happens frequently, and sometimes its no particular person's fault, just a matter of statistics.No one can choose to live their lives free of any risks. We must sort through which ones are significant and makes decisions about them, weighing benefits no? I think the risks associated with "safe sex" are similarly negligible. 

Okay, negotiate a rate with your insurer, for insurance against creating a child whilst using a set of birth control methods.

 

Alternately, you could neglect or be unable to insure against that, refuse to acnowledge that by default you are your own insurer, and rob me to pay for the consequences if you need to make the insurance claim.

If you and I happened to be born in one particular territory run by one particular government, is it rational that each of us must automatically be the insurer of the other?

 

This was part of a discussion Kanith and I were having. The example we were using was "Say a man dying of thirst meets a vendor who has a bottle of water. He wants to sell that bottle of water to you for $1'000'000. He's not aggressing against you so NAP is technically followed, but you're a dick".

If for example, the 'dying of thirst' man had insurance for that desert expedition, when he dies, his insurer will sue the vendor for causing them a loss, and the vendor will have trouble from his own insurers who won't like what he does to their industry.

 

UPB references the preference for being alive, so if the 'dying of thirst' man pulls his weapon and threatens the life of another, to save his own, then he is implementing the preference on which UPB is based. Oh he lost his weapon? Was he insured for the consequences of not having a potentially life-saving weapon?

[Trotter332]

I never made implied it was 100%. dsayers talked about "engage(ing) in behavior you know will likely end in a particular outcome." We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving. We expose ourselves to any number of risks even sitting in a building, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for freak accidents.

Okay, I see the line of thinking now. Something I want to get better at is taking the written language as it as and to not be quick to interpret it. Thank you for pointing it out for me.