Culpability Without Causation?

[ForgedinHell]

A firing squad, consisting of five shooters, fire their rifles at the same time; and each shooter hits his target in the heart. The first shooter tells himself that he is not responsible for the killing, because if he had not fired, the other four shooters would have, so the prisoner would have died whether he pulled the trigger or not. The second shooter concludes that he is not responsible for the death either, because had he not pulled the trigger, the other four shooters would have. The third, fourth, and fifth shooters come to the same conclusion, for the same reasons. So, although each shoots a bullet into the heart of the prisoner, how can we say any of them are responsible for the death, since none of them caused the death by their actions?

And, can a voter who voted for, let's say Richard Nixon, use the same reasoning to say she was not responsible for causing Watergate, because even had she voted otherwise, Nixon still would have been elected, so she did not cause Nixon to be elected?

Can this same reasoning be used to escape responsibilty whenever people act in a group?

[The Voice of Time]

There are two ways of saying no to this: first -> each member influenced the final decisions by participating, second -> each member did not oppose the final decisions, and as such is responsible in not influencing it not to happen when they were part of the situation which made it happen

[tbieter]

A firing squad, consisting of five shooters, fire their rifles at the same time; and each shooter hits his target in the heart. The first shooter tells himself that he is not responsible for the killing, because if he had not fired, the other four shooters would have, so the prisoner would have died whether he pulled the trigger or not. The second shooter concludes that he is not responsible for the death either, because had he not pulled the trigger, the other four shooters would have. The third, fourth, and fifth shooters come to the same conclusion, for the same reasons. So, although each shoots a bullet into the heart of the prisoner, how can we say any of them are responsible for the death, since none of them caused the death by their actions?

And, can a voter who voted for, let's say Richard Nixon, use the same reasoning to say she was not responsible for causing Watergate, because even had she voted otherwise, Nixon still would have been elected, so she did not cause Nixon to be elected?

Can this same reasoning be used to escape responsibilty whenever people act in a group?

In reality, the brute fact is that five bullets physically destroyed the victim's heart resulting in his body's death. But for the five shooters' act of shooting, the victim would still live. All five caused his death. This is an Aristotelian judgment.

What they believe (a mental construct) is irrelevant.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

They are all responsible, even if four had missed. I don't buy the 'only following orders' argument either.

[ForgedinHell]

There are two ways of saying no to this: first -> each member influenced the final decisions by participating, second -> each member did not oppose the final decisions, and as such is responsible in not influencing it not to happen when they were part of the situation which made it happen

Everyone who stood by and watched it happen would be just as guilty under such a theory.

[ForgedinHell]

A firing squad, consisting of five shooters, fire their rifles at the same time; and each shooter hits his target in the heart. The first shooter tells himself that he is not responsible for the killing, because if he had not fired, the other four shooters would have, so the prisoner would have died whether he pulled the trigger or not. The second shooter concludes that he is not responsible for the death either, because had he not pulled the trigger, the other four shooters would have. The third, fourth, and fifth shooters come to the same conclusion, for the same reasons. So, although each shoots a bullet into the heart of the prisoner, how can we say any of them are responsible for the death, since none of them caused the death by their actions?

And, can a voter who voted for, let's say Richard Nixon, use the same reasoning to say she was not responsible for causing Watergate, because even had she voted otherwise, Nixon still would have been elected, so she did not cause Nixon to be elected?

Can this same reasoning be used to escape responsibilty whenever people act in a group?

In reality, the brute fact is that five bullets physically destroyed the victim's heart resulting in his body's death. But for the five shooters' act of shooting, the victim would still live. All five caused his death. This is an Aristotelian judgment.

No, in reality five bullets did not "cause" the death. But for the first rifleman not shooting, the person still would have died. That's the point, what are you basing the "causation" on? The fact is that rifle squads are used, precisely for this reason -- the shooters find it easier to live with what they have done after the shooting.

What they believe (a mental construct) is irrelevant.

[ForgedinHell]

They are all responsible, even if four had missed. I don't buy the 'only following orders' argument either.

What causal basis is there for finding all are responsible? Normally, a person should only be held liable for harm that he caused, and in this case, each shooter has a valid argument that they did not cause the death. Yet, we know there seems to be something wrong with this. However, just stating the assertion that they are all responsible, without explaining why seems unsatisfying.

[The Voice of Time]

depends on their degree of participation, and the threat posed by the military men carrying firearms. If it happened in a climate where you yourself wouldn't be instantly shot at for not trying to stop it, it would be unfair to call emphasize your participation in the matter, though you certainly would participate, just like the watchers of executions in the United States surely are participating in carrying out the execution of a person, and often are personally to blame for it as they chose to appeal for capital punishment in a court, or otherwise didn't avoid the capital punishment from occurring.

[ForgedinHell]

depends on their degree of participation, and the threat posed by the military men carrying firearms. If it happened in a climate where you yourself wouldn't be instantly shot at for not trying to stop it, it would be unfair to call emphasize your participation in the matter, though you certainly would participate, just like the watchers of executions in the United States surely are participating in carrying out the execution of a person, and often are personally to blame for it as they chose to appeal for capital punishment in a court, or otherwise didn't avoid the capital punishment from occurring.

There is never a duty criminally to save someone like a stranger from any harm. At least not in the US. But, someone standing by, even yelling their support, they don't change a thing, the person would be shot even if they yelled to stop it.

[The Voice of Time]

That may be, the person still didn't do enough, or if it can't do more then they can blame their innocence on that.

In Norway it's illegal to not help people who have a traffic accident. I don't know about bar fights and stuff like it, violence, as I've never heard of any incident of the like, but I suspect people who neglect to inform the police so that they can act would be punishable for delaying police or aiding the criminals, either way, punishable. To not inform the police of a committed murder would surely be punishable in the US, anything else would be absurd, as then people could only claim their innocence in having a right to remain silent on the subject towards the police.

[ForgedinHell]

That may be, the person still didn't do enough, or if it can't do more then they can blame their innocence on that.

In Norway it's illegal to not help people who have a traffic accident. I don't know about bar fights and stuff like it, violence, as I've never heard of any incident of the like, but I suspect people who neglect to inform the police so that they can act would be punishable for delaying police or aiding the criminals, either way, punishable. To not inform the police of a committed murder would surely be punishable in the US, anything else would be absurd, as then people could only claim their innocence in having a right to remain silent on the subject towards the police.

There may be some funky law some where, but I know in lawschool I was taught that criminally, as long as a person did not harm the person, they could sit back, watch them die with a smile on their face, and there is no criminal liability. Not calling for help would not get someone in trouble. It's only if someone assists in the attack, like cheering it on, or assisting someone hide afterwards, that they could face liability.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That may be, the person still didn't do enough, or if it can't do more then they can blame their innocence on that.

In Norway it's illegal to not help people who have a traffic accident. I don't know about bar fights and stuff like it, violence, as I've never heard of any incident of the like, but I suspect people who neglect to inform the police so that they can act would be punishable for delaying police or aiding the criminals, either way, punishable. To not inform the police of a committed murder would surely be punishable in the US, anything else would be absurd, as then people could only claim their innocence in having a right to remain silent on the subject towards the police.

There may be some funky law some where, but I know in lawschool I was taught that criminally, as long as a person did not harm the person, they could sit back, watch them die with a smile on their face, and there is no criminal liability. Not calling for help would not get someone in trouble. It's only if someone assists in the attack, like cheering it on, or assisting someone hide afterwards, that they could face liability.

But no one here was 'sitting back'. They were all trying to kill him (unless someone was trying to aim away but was a really bad shot). I think the original premise was flawed. The fact that all the bullets hit the heart is irrelevant. What matters is that they all tried to kill him and no one tried to save him. If they had all decided to aim away he wouldn't have died at that time.

[ForgedinHell]

That may be, the person still didn't do enough, or if it can't do more then they can blame their innocence on that.

In Norway it's illegal to not help people who have a traffic accident. I don't know about bar fights and stuff like it, violence, as I've never heard of any incident of the like, but I suspect people who neglect to inform the police so that they can act would be punishable for delaying police or aiding the criminals, either way, punishable. To not inform the police of a committed murder would surely be punishable in the US, anything else would be absurd, as then people could only claim their innocence in having a right to remain silent on the subject towards the police.

There may be some funky law some where, but I know in lawschool I was taught that criminally, as long as a person did not harm the person, they could sit back, watch them die with a smile on their face, and there is no criminal liability. Not calling for help would not get someone in trouble. It's only if someone assists in the attack, like cheering it on, or assisting someone hide afterwards, that they could face liability.

But no one here was 'sitting back'. They were all trying to kill him (unless someone was trying to aim away but was a really bad shot). I think the original premise was flawed. The fact that all the bullets hit the heart is irrelevant. What matters is that they all tried to kill him and no one tried to save him. If they had all decided to aim away he wouldn't have died at that time.

I was responding to another person's comment where that issue was raised.

But that's just it, the guy dies whether any specific shooter fires or not. Only if they all decide not to shoot does the person live. So, there is no causal connection between the shooter's conduct and being culpable. One cannot say that any specific shooter passes the well-known "but-for test" used in law. But for any shooter firing, the person would not have died? That's not true though, so we cannot blame any specific shooter based on but-for causation.

Substantial contribution? How so? The rifleman did not give the order to shoot, and any specific rifleman's shot did not cause the death. Yet, in some sense, we know that each shooter was responsible. This means either that a different standard of causation has to be devised, to hold people responsible for their conduct, or else we hold people responsible even when there is no causal connection between their acs and a harm. But if the latter, how far can we go. If the former, then what is the causal test?