Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ethics question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ethics question

    Here's a hypothetical for you.

    Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

    Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?

    Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
    Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

    In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?

  • #2
    I think it comes down to the notion of "knowingly" creating a situation in which violence could reasonably be a result.

    However - individual responsibility is a principle that Fred committed the crime - murder - which is his own burden to bear.

    Were you complicit? That would come down to whether it can be shown that you knew that murder might be a likely outcome of your statement.

    Another concept -- did Fred go immediately murder them (a crime of passion) or plan revenge (premeditated murder).
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
      Here's a hypothetical for you.

      Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

      Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?
      I think that would depend at least partly on whether you could have reasonably guessed what Fred's response would be, and whether that was your intent.

      Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
      Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

      In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
      Whether your words were true or false could be taken into account in determining what your intent was in making the statement. And if they were false, that could be considered a separate, and possibly compounding, moral failure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good question. I think if it can be proven that you were purposefully manipulating him into committing murder like actually talking him into it, or "brainwashing" him, inciting him, then you could be held responsible, kinda like Charles Manson. Merely lying to him that his wife was having an affair, I don't think you would be legally responsible for his actions. He could have just divorced her, right?

        Incitement of violence is a thing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
          Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
          It would be argued that malice was a factor. Possibly even "acting in concert" or conspiring.

          Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?
          Absent malice.

          In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
          I think it goes more to the notion that you KNEW the words were true or false. We can tell somebody something that we believe to be true, that is, in reality, false.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is about Trump inciting the riot at the Capitol, eh?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Alice had every right in the world to have lunch with Charlie. She was not married to Fred.

              And Fred was 100% responsible for his own actions. Unless he were a Democrat, in which case whatever weapon he used was 100% responsible. Then again, if Alice and Charlie were black or Hispanic, and Fred were white, then Fred would be 100% responsible, regardless of what the weapon was.

              However, if Alice and Charlie were white and Fred were black or Hispanic, then it would have been Alice's and Charlie's fault for inciting a riot.

              Your only culpability was in telling Fred. Unless you worked for the New York Times of Washington Post, in which case it was your right (and actual responsibility) to make this known to Fred, regardless of what the consequences or outcome would be.

              When I Survey....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Faber View Post
                Alice had every right in the world to have lunch with Charlie. She was not married to Fred.

                And Fred was 100% responsible for his own actions. Unless he were a Democrat, in which case whatever weapon he used was 100% responsible. Then again, if Alice and Charlie were black or Hispanic, and Fred were white, then Fred would be 100% responsible, regardless of what the weapon was.

                However, if Alice and Charlie were white and Fred were black or Hispanic, then it would have been Alice's and Charlie's fault for inciting a riot.

                Your only culpability was in telling Fred. Unless you worked for the New York Times of Washington Post, in which case it was your right (and actual responsibility) to make this known to Fred, regardless of what the consequences or outcome would be.
                Good one!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                  Here's a hypothetical for you.

                  Fred is the significant other of Alice, and is known to be jealous. Alice is eating lunch with Charlie, a coworker. I have Fred meet me across the street from where they are eating lunch. I tell Fred that Alice is cheating on him with Charlie. Fred in a fit of rage, kills both Alice and Charlie.

                  Am I responsible for Alice and Charlie's death?

                  Does that responsibility change in any way if I knew Alice and Charlie were not having an affair?
                  Does that responsibility change if I said "There's been talk that Charlie and Alice are having an affair, which is true, regardless of whether they are actually having an affair?

                  In other words, if crime happens as a direct result of my statement, is my culpability reliant on whether the words I spoke true or false?
                  Unless you had good reason to know that Fred would respond violently, I can't see how you could be held responsible for his response even if you knew what you were saying was a lie.

                  On the other hand, if you knew that Fred was the type who could be provoked into a murderous rage, and it was your intent to antagonize him, then you would be at least partially culpable even if what you told him was true.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                    It would be argued that malice was a factor. Possibly even "acting in concert" or conspiring.



                    Absent malice.



                    I think it goes more to the notion that you KNEW the words were true or false. We can tell somebody something that we believe to be true, that is, in reality, false.
                    The theme I see in answers (and also what I believe) is that the truth of my words are irrelevant to my culpability. Instead my culpability revolves around A. My Action, B. Whether I should have reasonably expected a violent reaction, and C. My motive in taking the action

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      The theme I see in answers (and also what I believe) is that the truth of my words are irrelevant to my culpability. Instead my culpability revolves around A. My Action, B. Whether I should have reasonably expected a violent reaction, and C. My motive in taking the action
                      So, it's about Trump.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        So, it's about Trump.
                        More that I've seen enough people differentiating between democrat support for BLM riots and Trump's speech by claiming that it's different because "Trump lied"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          More that I've seen enough people differentiating between democrat support for BLM riots and Trump's speech by claiming that it's different because "Trump lied"
                          So, it was about Trump.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                          6 responses
                          45 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post whag
                          by whag
                           
                          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                          42 responses
                          231 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post whag
                          by whag
                           
                          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                          24 responses
                          104 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Ronson
                          by Ronson
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                          32 responses
                          176 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                          73 responses
                          307 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                          Working...
                          X