Question of guilt

[Anonymous No.6088204]

Me and my friend had a discussion.
If man A place out a landmine and later man B steps on it and dies.

Who is responsible for the death of man B?

1) Man A for placing the mine
2) Man B for stepping on it.
3) Both men
4) other

I think it is 3 because
If A had not planted B would survive
If B had not stepped there B would survive
But when A place and B step B gonna die.

My friend think it is 1 the whole guilt lies on A.

[Anonymous No.6088215]

Does B step on it deliberately, or accidentally?

If deliberately, 2
If accidentally, 1

[Anonymous No.6088220]

>>6088215
I almost agree with you, except that if it was deliberate, then it would be 3, since person A placing the landmine is what made person B's action possible.

[Anonymous No.6088237]

>>6088220
But if it was deliberate, then that would mean tat B knew about the landmine, and could have avoided it if he wished.

By your logic, the maker of a gun is responsible for any deaths by suicide with the gun.

[Anonymous No.6088244]

>>6088220
By your logic, every single ancestor is responsible for every action committed by any given person.

You seem to consider moral culpability identical to causality, in which case most people are morally responsible for innumerable actions of other people due to coexistence in a deterministically linked, chaotic system.

When you come to understand the full implications of this logic, you will realize that culpability loses its meaning.

So >>6088215

p.s. This is neither science nor math, and I strongly suspect that you are underage.

[Anonymous No.6088250]

>>6088215
>I see. What if he walked into a known minefield and stepped on one carelessy?

[Anonymous No.6088254]

>>6088250
Still 2.
Walking into a known minefield without knowing where the mines are is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6088258]

it depends.

If, for example, the person 'A' placed the mine there, hidden on an enemy pathway, during a war and 'B' was an unsuspecting enemy soldier, then 'A' was ultimately responsible (or his commanding officer that ordered him to place it there).

Now, if person 'A' was laying a minefield for a DMZ in a clearly marked area and 'B' was trying his luck to sneak past, then 'B' was ultimately responsible.

Sure, i can see your point of partial blame for being born, but in the eyes of general society, then blame would be given 100% to one or the other.

[Anonymous No.6088260]

>>6088237
If you want to do it like that, then you also need to blame the person who gave him the gun, the person who gave him the bullet, the person who made the bullet, the people who delivered the gun and bullet, all the people who had part in the invention and advancements in guns and bullets, and everything that influenced the person to commit suicide with the gun, which would every thing that both indirectly and directly interacted with him until that point. I could keep going but I think you get the point.

[Anonymous No.6088272]

>>6088244
I agree with what you are saying, but since the only options given are 1,2, or 3, the closest answer would be 3. I know I ignored 4, but other should never be an option for this question, since it basically is ANY option besides 1,2 or 3.

[Anonymous No.6088293]

>>6088272
>I agree with what you're saying, but will continue to believe the wrong answer.

[Anonymous No.6088304]

>>6088293
Given the options I am going with the answer that is least wrong. It's still wrong, but it's the best one that can be chosen.

[Anonymous No.6088318]

It suddenly occured to me that 4chan has philosophy board for shit questions like this except /b. However since mostly trolls or stupid people lurk there. I guess people post this stuff in here..

[Anonymous No.6088322]

>>6088318
I think OP was trying to get an answer for this question using only logic, but that's never really possible with questions that involve a people or choices, since there are almost always too many outside variables.

[Anonymous No.6088339]

>>6088322
Well logically person A have no controll over the mine after placement so i guess person B is allways responsible for his death regardless if he stepped on the mine with intent or not.

Person A is responsible the situation that caused person B to be responsible for his death

but idk

[Anonymous No.6088357]

So if a guy is in his house and someone breaks in and shoots him it's his fault for being in the way of the bullet?

You guys are retarded.

[Anonymous No.6088388]

>>6088357
If he wasn't in the way of the bullet, he wouldn't have gotten shot. The problem is that that is only one part of reason he got shot. There are almost an infinite number of variables, each with almost an infinite number of options. Only a finite number of combinations of those variables end with him getting shot. So while he is technically at fault, the amount of fault that he has, the number of variables he influenced into becoming the correct values needed is so small compared to the total number of variables. its practically negligible.

[Anonymous No.6088389]

>>6088388
Since there are an infinite amount of variables, I can kill someone and say my fault is negligible? Okay.

[Anonymous No.6088403]

>>6088389
The number of variables is ALMOST infinite. Its not infinite, but it is extremely large. Also, the way we determine who is guilty, is normally decided by finding the living person who had the most amount of fault, generally using only the variables that were decided during or very close to the time that the action occurred. In that sense, you would most likely be the person who affected the largest number of variables. So while you are correct that the amount of fault you have in comparison to the total amount of fault is small enough to be basically negligible, it is not small enough to be considered negligible when compared to the amount of fault that is actually looked at when deciding the guilty party.

Basically, we don't compare your fault to the total amount of fault, we compare it to the amount of fault that best fits within the most accurate, yet still smallest, time frame.

[God's gift to OP No.6088411]

Man A placed a land mine.

Man B stepped on a land mine.

Each were responsible for the actions they took.

More information is required to say anything more on the subject. We need information on each man's intention. If you're talking about moral responsibility, then we aren't simply talking about mere cause and effect, in which case the 'Big Bang' and the very origins of existence are the cause of man B's death.

We need a little more information about each man's personal knowledge. Did man A place a mine in particular area where man B is known to walk regularly? Did he have knowledge of man B's routine or anything of him at all? Did man A have some particular reason for placing the mine (security in a war zone, etc.) that man B was aware of?

You would have to be a moron to jump to rash conclusions without necessary information or evidence. Your friend assumes the guilt of man A because of some emotional, knee-jerk vindictiveness or he is simply used to not thinking things over.

[Anonymous No.6088429]

>>6088403
So you've basically just sat down in your adolescent goodness and come to the conclusion that everything is causally determined in a very intricate way and as such everyone who is connected to any given event through any traceable causal path is therefore partly responsible for the event.

The idea of responsibility implies a free agent in the causal system. If you accept this then intention must be taken into account when assigning responsibility, and the causal tie must be weighted with this intention.

If you do not accept the concept of a free agent in the system then responsibility is meaningless as the entire system is a single entity that follows a set of deterministic laws. Unless, of course, you want to start spouting out patently ridiculous statements such as "gravity is responsible for the death of people who jump off of high buildings".

Ultimately I think your concept of responsibility is confused through a number of vague assumptions that you have made without necessarily even being aware of them, and elucidating them would be a tedious task if not impossible at this point.

Context is also critical for this conversation. Are you talking about legal responsibility? Moral responsibility? Simplistic causality (which is what you have indicated through all of your replies so far)?

Wax on, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6088455]

>>6088429
While I only understood about half of that, what I can get from it pretty much beats my argument. I'm also just tired of this thread

[Anonymous No.6088461]

You're way off. It is the landmine's fault, it was the one who killed B. If you don't like that answer, because the landmine is an inanimate object, then how about the company who created the landmine. In the legal system though, it would be completely A's fault.

[Anonymous No.6088482]

It's option 1. Even though you werent directly or purposefully responsible for the man's death, you were doing something with the inherent risk of killing someone. This is essentially felony murder.

[Talimar No.6088488]

Can we prove an ethical proposition to the scenario?

In this case, you would argue a war is most probable, whose exactness would then require an argument for scaling responsibility from that frame over that of liability.

My answer would be 3. Both men. A for doing his job, and B for fucking his up. (supposedly. Maybe he's just bad at his job of mine detection?)

[Anonymous No.6088511]

>>6088411
/thread

responsibility != causality

[Anonymous No.6088546]

>>6088204
>babby's first nexus causality
>these limited options

top freaking kek.

Why not blame the guy who sold him the mine? Why not blame the mine manufacturer? Why not the guy who designed the mine? Why not the government that didn't ban mine production in the first place? Why not the grandma cozy in her house 500 miles away because she didn't get on a plane to coincidentally see the man about to step on the mine and then stop him from stepping on it?

All of those are crucial factors that could've also prevented the man from dying via explosion. You're nowhere even close to an actual answer on this question. The only thing we can do is set arbitrary, yet self-consistent, laws and judge the intent of the actors directly involved.

[Anonymous No.6088595]

>Who is responsible for the death of man B?

"Responsible" is a word used in the English language for communicative purposes. It is not fundamental to reality, and so you have to know what you are trying to communicate when you say somebody is responsible.

If you are saying "It wouldn't have happened except for..." then the "responsible" party is the whole universe, a more extreme version of the position taken by
>>6088546
It's the responsibility of the Big Bang for setting this entire timeline in motion, and the responsibility of every single quantum event since which didn't derail it.

If you are trying to make a law, the "responsible" party is whomever you feel would be better to make responsible - should we bar A from planting landmines, or require everybody to to carry Mine Detectors?

If you are... etc.

[Anonymous No.6089786]

>>6088204
4) God, obviously

Pray, my brothers

[Anonymous No.6089808]

Depends if he stepped on it on purpose or not. If he did then #3 because without A he would have not stepped on the mine therefore it makes both of them at fault but if he did it unintentionally then #2 is the best choice.