Some general thoughts about philosophy (VLP)

[Evilperson]

I am very critical of the government. Not to say i could do a better job. It stems from my highly unique ability to criticize things. In my philosophy lecture recently, we were talking about moral responsibility, free will and the likes of human actions. So think about the following situations and just think about them.

 

 

 

Two people are going to assassinate someone. But one of them bought a cheap gun. They both fire at the person at the same time, with the intent of killing the person. So the person with the cheap gun misfires, and doesn't shoot. But the person with a normal gun, fires and successfully kills the intended target. Now according to the United States, the two people would not get the same punishment. The unlucky person who had the faulty gun gets off with attempted murder and significantly less jail time. The person who had the regular gun gets charged with premeditated murder and is sentenced to life in jail.

 

(by the way, lets assume it is not the persons fault they received a faulty gun).

 

Is this fair? Two people with the exact same intent receive significantly different punishments.

 

So should the United States base their legal system off of intent? Or is this impossible because it is impossible to prove the intent?

 

 

 

Or how about this case:

 

 

 

Two truck drivers drive the exact same truck. Both have faulty brakes. However, on they take two different routes. On one path, the driver sees a child in the road and slams on the brakes, but since they are faulty, they fail and he kills the child. The other driver doesn't encounter any children. The second driver gets off scott-free even though he did not do anything different than the first driver. The first driver is charged with negligence of some kind and prosecuted for man slaughter. The two drivers did nothing different, yet they received severely different punishments.

 

 

 

Can you be appropriately blamed for things outside of your control? Both truck drivers were negligent. But yet we still blame only one.

 

 

 

And now for a completely new situation:

 

 

 

Lets suppose that a man has a chance to talk to the queen of England. Lets call him Vinny. Without Vinny's knowledge, Larry puts a chip in his brain that allows Larry to see his intentions and then it gives him the ability to change his actions as he pleases. Now suppose Larry wants Vinny to insult the queen.

 

 

 

Vinny, for some reason, decides 'hey, it would be a great story to tell my kids that I insulted the queen!' and when he has a chance to meet her, he insults her. Larry does not need to use the chip to force Vinny to insult the queen because he is doing it upon his own free will. Situation ends.

 

 

 

Vinny, for some reason, decides that insulting the queen is bad and right when he is about to insult her, he stops himself. But Larry sees this and activates the chip forcing him to insult her. Vinny insults her. End of situation.

 

 

 

Final situation. Vinny, for some reason, finds out that Larry put the chip in his brain and he knows that he is going to make him insult her. And instead of having a lame insult forced out of him by Larry, he stays up all night thinking of a REALLY good one to use. Since he is going to be forced to do it anyways, he decides to insult her out of his own free will.

 

 

 

Now for the last situation, is Vinny morally responsible? He made the choice, but if he had chosen otherwise, it wouldn't have mattered because of the chip. Should he be punished at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion- How can we account for moral luck?

 

-Is there such a thing as moral luck?

 

 

 

Ps. Sorry if i seem like a rambling fool. If you are interested and would like clarification on some points, just ask. I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

[IGoddessI]

Your philosophies aren't going to matter to the legal system but something similar has crossed my mind too, social majority rules this reality, both fortunately and unfortunately.

[jak722]

 

Two people are going to assassinate someone. But one of them bought a cheap gun. They both fire at the person at the same time, with the intent of killing the person. So the person with the cheap gun misfires, and doesn't shoot. But the person with a normal gun, fires and successfully kills the intended target. Now according to the United States, the two people would not get the same punishment. The unlucky person who had the faulty gun gets off with attempted murder and significantly less jail time. The person who had the regular gun gets charged with premeditated murder and is sentenced to life in jail.

 

(by the way, lets assume it is not the persons fault they received a faulty gun).

 

Is this fair? Two people with the exact same intent receive significantly different punishments.

 

So should the United States base their legal system off of intent? Or is this impossible because it is impossible to prove the intent?

 

 

 

My way of analyzing and interpreting cases would work out like this:

 

 

 

1.) I would ask exactly where was the crime committed (Which jurisdiction and which laws really apply)

 

 

 

2.) I would argue that they still have a chance to appeal to court

 

 

 

3.) Now if and only if the appeals court decides to re-examine the case, chances are, their decision will affect the legal system.

 

 

 

But if they don't decide to re-examine the case, then there wouldn't even be an argument whether or not to base their legal system on Mens Rea or intent.

 

The charges will remain and their punishments will remain the same.

 

 

 

The argument of whether intent is possible or even impossible to prove will not even exist at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or how about this case:

 

 

 

Two truck drivers drive the exact same truck. Both have faulty brakes. However, on they take two different routes. On one path, the driver sees a child in the road and slams on the brakes, but since they are faulty, they fail and he kills the child. The other driver doesn't encounter any children. The second driver gets off scott-free even though he did not do anything different than the first driver. The first driver is charged with negligence of some kind and prosecuted for man slaughter. The two drivers did nothing different, yet they received severely different punishments.

 

 

 

Can you be appropriately blamed for things outside of your control? Both truck drivers were negligent. But yet we still blame only one.

 

 

 

Again, I would say something like this:

 

 

 

1.) Both of them are guilty - But depending on the laws they are under, they can either be charged with negligence, if they do something that will bring them attention to other people, or if they voluntarily admit they did something wrong.

 

 

 

If they dont attract attention and if they dont admit, then no one can make any accusations.

 

 

 

2.) Since only one person actually got caught, only that person can be charged

 

 

 

And since nobody even knows about the other trucker, as far as people know, he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

 

 

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

 

 

 

 

And now for a completely new situation:

 

 

 

Lets suppose that a man has a chance to talk to the queen of England. Lets call him Vinny. Without Vinny's knowledge, Larry puts a chip in his brain that allows Larry to see his intentions and then it gives him the ability to change his actions as he pleases. Now suppose Larry wants Vinny to insult the queen.

 

 

 

Vinny, for some reason, decides 'hey, it would be a great story to tell my kids that I insulted the queen!' and when he has a chance to meet her, he insults her. Larry does not need to use the chip to force Vinny to insult the queen because he is doing it upon his own free will. Situation ends.

 

 

 

Vinny, for some reason, decides that insulting the queen is bad and right when he is about to insult her, he stops himself. But Larry sees this and activates the chip forcing him to insult her. Vinny insults her. End of situation.

 

 

 

Again I would like to say the same paradox about the falling tree on this one.

 

 

 

However in this case, there is a all-knowing witness, but the witness will probably never say anything.

 

 

 

Although Larry is guilty, no one will ever know he is responsible.

 

 

 

Therefore, Vinny is the only guilty party according to the people in the story- and now have to decide what to do.

 

Either Apologize, or just go with the insult.

 

 

 

He doesn't have any free will before the insult, but he has free will after the insult.

 

 

 

 

Final situation. Vinny, for some reason, finds out that Larry put the chip in his brain and he knows that he is going to make him insult her. And instead of having a lame insult forced out of him by Larry, he stays up all night thinking of a REALLY good one to use. Since he is going to be forced to do it anyways, he decides to insult her out of his own free will.

 

 

 

Now for the last situation, is Vinny morally responsible? He made the choice, but if he had chosen otherwise, it wouldn't have mattered because of the chip. Should he be punished at all?

 

 

 

My answer would be it is a matter of personal choice.

 

 

 

If Vinny knows he will be forced to insult the queen, why doesn't he consider not coming instead?

 

 

 

 

Conclusion- How can we account for moral luck?

 

-Is there such a thing as moral luck?

 

 

 

We can't

 

 

 

Is there such a thing as moral luck?

 

 

 

Yes and No.

 

 

 

Yes in that we know the whole story and we know that one person got caught, and the other person didn't even though he is also guilty.

 

 

 

But everyone in the story doesn't know about these.

 

(IE, Dramatic Irony)

 

 

 

And no since in the real world, we don't know everything.

[kelem_ryu]

Don't let your head get too heavy with hypothetical scenarios.

 

 

 

Most likely you'll never have to judge any of these persons. On the other hand you'll have to live with your own actions. So imagine you are each person in every scenario.

 

 

 

Imagine you intend to murder somebody and pull it off.

 

Imagine you intend to murder somebody, but the attempt fails.

 

I think there is quite a difference in how you'll feel about these two cases.

 

 

 

Imagine you are one person ithe first scenario and then that you are the other person.

 

No matter which person you are, the victim is dead anyway. I do believe btw that the person with the faulty gun would get a harder punishment then the

Imagine you intend to murder somebody, but the attempt fails.

guy.

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine you are a truck driver and drive around with faulty breaks.

 

Imagine you are a truck driver and run over a child, due to your faulty breaks.

 

 

 

Imagine you are Vinny. Would you feel guilty for insutling the queen?

[Ginger_Warrior]

It's unwise to think of things like this. I agrere with you to a certain extent - our judgement in life is based on a simple argument; consequentialism or deontology. Depending on who we are and our experiences in life, we will tend to lean more to one side, but we don't completely become distant to the other side.

 

 

 

Let's take another example. I as a doctor have an old granny, who suffers from a disabilitating, embarrasing terminal illness. She feels she's become so fed up and depressed over the illness, she simply wants to end her life. Coincidently, she's also signed a will to me for the years of healthcare I've provided her.

 

 

 

My personal judgement would be to euthanise the patient, but I can't make that judgement easily. After all, isn't it immoral for me;

 

 

 

A) To kill;

 

and

 

B) To take her money by killing her?

 

 

 

I am personally more of a consequentialist than a deontologist, however, it's clear from my judgement there that I do think deontologistically at times.

 

 

 

What you're doing, however, is taking a completely one-sided stance on things. From a deontologist's point of view, yes, that truck driver has commited exactly the same offence as the other truck driver, but surely there's a difference involved when a person actually dies as a consequence to their actions? The consequences of the actions of the truck driver who ran over the child are far greater than the other truck driver's actions, so isn't it only fair that (s)he receives a greater punishment, in recognition of that fact?

 

 

 

That's for you to decide, but looking at issues like this from a completely one-sided way usually leads to a poor judgement.

[assassin_696]

Attempted murder is a punishable crime in nearly all legal systems, so intent really is considered in crimes, it's not purely based on success. I see your point though, and I do think people shouldn't necessarily be punished for bad luck, but should be punished equally for any intention which leads to a horrific consequence in which luck merely plays a part.

[baron8000]

In response to your first situation I can shed some light on the UK legal system.

 

 

 

Basically in a crime you have to have the actus reus (the physical element) and the mens rea (the mental element). Now in this case the mental element is pretty simple - they both intended to kill so I'll disregard that. In terms of the actus reus under english law the current definition comes from the Appeal Court of the House of Lords and can be simplified as this. The act must either be successful or have been virtually certain to occur or (and this is the applicable part) if, by success of the planned act (the shooting of the gun) a consequent act is virtually certain (injury/death). This final definition was added after Lord Denning (I think) put forward a similar problem - say a bomb maker puts a bomb on a plane full of cargo to claim the insurance - he is a poor bomb maker so it is by no means a virtual certainty it will kill - previously it would have been possible to make a case for manslaughter verdict but under the added part this is no longer the case.

 

 

 

Admittedly the actual charge would be one of attempted rather than actual murder (as a murder charge can only occur with death, obviously) but as attempted and actual murder hold the same scope of penalty (as I would expect of most countries) justice is upheld.

 

 

 

@ Assassin under UK law people are never punished for bad luck - for someone to be proven blameworthy and therefore guilty a chain of causation must be present and unbroken - if a new and unforeseen act occurs (technically called a novus actus interveniens) this chain is broken and no blame attaches - thus no guilt occurs due to simple bad luck. Its more complicated than this but that's the condensed version.

[InkofDeath]

The last two I really don't want to dwell on for my own moral sake, but the first one, there are tons of variables that may not ave been presented to the legal court. Did they know the other assassin's intent? Did they take that into measure? Background history? It's kind of left open there.

 

 

 

Not too healthy to dwell on such thoughts, I think I remember from some site that a few college students debated about one such topic, that they committed suicide for unknown reasons, that may, or may not have related to their education. Don't ask me for a referral.

[Evilperson]

Not too healthy to dwell on such thoughts, I think I remember from some site that a few college students debated about one such topic, that they committed suicide for unknown reasons, that may, or may not have related to their education. Don't ask me for a referral.

 

 

 

How is it not healthy? I am examining aspects of our society, how they work, and the basic logic and process of our minds. I am not dwelling on this, but my philosophy class in general. I find the subject very interesting and i am considering a minor in philosophy.

 

 

 

Overall, it seems throughout the first half of my philosophy class, at every argument or logical process that we look at, there are flaws for certain parts of it. And i realized last night when reading psychological egoism and ethical egoism that we cannot base our lives off of one set of rules. There will be exceptions to every single case in our lives. we must make judgment as it comes and it is ludicrous to believe otherwise. I think thats why i believe the American legal system (i am not that familiar with any other legal system) is so bunk.

[assassin_696]

So how would you improve it?

[Evilperson]

So how would you improve it?

 

 

 

Yeah, thats why in the original post i said i couldn't do any better.

 

 

 

I'm just pointing out concepts to think about. I mean honestly, here in America, we have a [somewhat] decent legal system, and I don't feel like drawing from the depths of my knowledge (3 inches deep?) what exactly i feel needs to be changed. I think it is fair to say that there ARE parts which each individual doesn't agree with. From examples of Lopez vs. United States, to being able to appeal to a higher court system if the verdict you want doesn't go your way.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting change, i am merely promoting a different way to think critically of our standards in our societies.

[baron8000]

being able to appeal to a higher court system if the verdict you want doesn't go your way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you disagree with the right to appeal :-s Many big BIG cases have had their verdicts reversed (rightfully) due to higher appeal. I'm unsure whether this is your view or not but presumably you've heard it argued to reference it.

[assassin_696]

So how would you improve it?

 

 

 

Yeah, thats why in the original post i said i couldn't do any better.

 

 

 

I'm just pointing out concepts to think about. I mean honestly, here in America, we have a [somewhat] decent legal system, and I don't feel like drawing from the depths of my knowledge (3 inches deep?) what exactly i feel needs to be changed. I think it is fair to say that there ARE parts which each individual doesn't agree with. From examples of Lopez vs. United States, to being able to appeal to a higher court system if the verdict you want doesn't go your way.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting change, i am merely promoting a different way to think critically of our standards in our societies.

 

 

 

I've no problem with that, I don't think the legal system (UK) is perfect either, but aside from a few minor changes I can't really think of many ways to improve it. Luckily, because we live in a democratic society if there was a really good suggestion of how to improve it you'd hope it would be imposed. Not always the case, but that's the idea.

 

 

 

To give you an idea of perhaps where it gets confusing, morally, for me, consider the two truck drivers you mentioned earlier, and imagine they both had gone to the pub and had a couple of drinks. Not enough to make them dangerously, but just enough to make their reactions reasonably impaired. Both drive home different ways, one gets home fine but one hits a child who steps out into the road (assume he would have been able to stop had he been sober). Clearly neither driver intended to hit a child, but both did intend to have a few drinks before driving home, knowing the potential consequences. The fact that one will face several years in prison for drink driving and the other goes off scott-free is, as you say, purely down to luck.

 

 

 

If the second driver had been caught above driving above the legal limit, should he punished the same as the one who committed manslaughter? After all, it's just a matter of luck. But if you punish them equally purely because of the potential consequences of their actions aren't you getting into very murky water?