FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 Some states have this law that if an armed robber enters a store to rob it and the owner fires on them but accidentally injures an innocent third party, the responsibility for this unintended injury/manslaughter or an innocent falls on the robber - in the absence of the robbery the accidental shooting would not have happened. This "feels right" but is this principle logical and is it applied uniformly?
Quinton Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 Do you have an example of where this happened? What part about it is not logical or uniform?
shirgall Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 Some states have this law that if an armed robber enters a store to rob it and the owner fires on them but accidentally injures an innocent third party, the responsibility for this unintended injury/manslaughter or an innocent falls on the robber - in the absence of the robbery the accidental shooting would not have happened. This "feels right" but is this principle logical and is it applied uniformly? This principle is called "felony murder" and the idea is that the responsibility for a death falls to the one that initiated the actions that directly lead to it. In an even more seemingly outlandish scenario: You and your buddy hijack the Qik-E-Mart, the guy behind the cash register pulls out his gun and kills your buddy... who goes to jail for murder? You do. Because you coldly planned to endanger the life of another and as a result of executing that plan a death resulted.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Posted March 25, 2016 Do you have an example of where this happened? What part about it is not logical or uniform? Sorry I meant universal, not uniform. Do we/should we apply this rule of responsibility for unintended consequences universally?
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Posted March 25, 2016 This principle is called "felony murder" and the idea is that the responsibility for a death falls to the one that initiated the actions that directly lead to it. In an even more seemingly outlandish scenario: You and your buddy hijack the Qik-E-Mart, the guy behind the cash register pulls out his gun and kills your buddy... who goes to jail for murder? You do. Because you coldly planned to endanger the life of another and as a result of executing that plan a death resulted. What can we say about this philosophically? Is it rational and a universal rule?
AncapFTW Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 This principle is called "felony murder" and the idea is that the responsibility for a death falls to the one that initiated the actions that directly lead to it. In an even more seemingly outlandish scenario: You and your buddy hijack the Qik-E-Mart, the guy behind the cash register pulls out his gun and kills your buddy... who goes to jail for murder? You do. Because you coldly planned to endanger the life of another and as a result of executing that plan a death resulted. Shouldn't your buddy be responsible for his own death, unless it can be shown that you forced or coerced him into the situation?
shirgall Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 What can we say about this philosophically? Is it rational and a universal rule? Shouldn't your buddy be responsible for his own death, unless it can be shown that you forced or coerced him into the situation? You knowingly and intentionally participated in a plan you helped devise and enact that lead to the death of another. Is this really that hard of a question? 1
AncapFTW Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 You knowingly and intentionally participated in a plan you helped devise and enact that lead to the death of another. Is this really that hard of a question? So your friend participated of his own free will, yet holds no responsibility for his own actions or his decision to risk his life in the committing of the crime? If the shopkeeper died, then yes, you attacked him first, which was part of the plan, but the death of someone else who chose to attack him? If I get together with a few of my buddies together to go bear hunting and one of them gets mauled by a bear, did I kill him too?
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Posted March 25, 2016 So your friend participated of his own free will, yet holds no responsibility for his own actions or his decision to risk his life in the committing of the crime? If the shopkeeper died, then yes, you attacked him first, which was part of the plan, but the death of someone else who chose to attack him? If I get together with a few of my buddies together to go bear hunting and one of them gets mauled by a bear, did I kill him too? Great, this seems to address my point by showing that there is a of lack of universality. Let's suppose me and some buddies go on a bear hunt, and while the bear is escaping our pursuit it happens to kill an innocent bystander. Are we guilty of manslaughter, or did the victim take their own risk by being somewhere where bears live or where bear hunts happen?
shirgall Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 So your friend participated of his own free will, yet holds no responsibility for his own actions or his decision to risk his life in the committing of the crime? If the shopkeeper died, then yes, you attacked him first, which was part of the plan, but the death of someone else who chose to attack him? If I get together with a few of my buddies together to go bear hunting and one of them gets mauled by a bear, did I kill him too? You can hold him responsible, too, but he's dead, so what's the point? That does not absolve you of anything. You still coldly planned to threaten the life of another and a death was a direct result. Bear hunting is not violent crime, but sure, it has risks, and you all share those risks and responsibility for the outcome.
thebeardslastcall Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 Compare this with a police officer assaulting you and also blaming you for all the harm caused by their excessive use of force to stop you from doing something trivial or not even breaking a law, but simply not submitting to their inquiry demands.In a free society you'd agree to how these situations would be handled and then you'd avoid places that had rules you didn't like where you were worried you'd be liable for something you didn't think you should be liable for. With free association you set your own punishments and liability rules and then if you break a rule you're subject to your own justice. If you invade someone else's land without such an agreement then you've denied property rights of others and thus forfeit them for yourself (including your life). People are more likely to rob a bank if they won't be liable for all the crap that befalls the situation, but if you make them liable for people's attempts to defend themselves they'll not so easily do something egregious like that. What violates UPB tends to universal, but how you handle violations, what you might call justice, is not universal in the same way. You could say the base reality is that, in the absence of agreement and thus morality in a sense, any justice is fair game, because you can't claim rights while denying them for others. When you agree to respect other people's properties then you come to agreements on justice, which is locally specific. So the underlying rules have some universality to them, but the specifics of what is allowed on someone's property and how to handle various violations is person dependent.
Recommended Posts