About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 - 10:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'll put it this way. There are two scenarios that I'd like to see responses to. I believe they require a deeper understanding of causality than Objectivism has previously set forth. Happily, the two scenarios are reproduced here:
A spy, setting out to cross the desert with some key intelligence, fills his canteen with just enough water for the crossing and settles down for a quick nap. While he is asleep, Enemy A sneaks into his tent and pokes a very small hole in the canteen, and a short while later enemy B sneaks in and adds a tasteless poison. The spy awakes, forges ahead into the desert, and when he goes to drink from his canteen discovers it is empty and dies of thirst before he can get water. What was the cause of the spy's death? According to the counterfactual theory, neither enemy's action caused the death. If enemy A had not poked a hole in the canteen, then the spy still would have died by poison. If enemy B had not put poison into the canteen, then he still would have died from thirst. Their actions overdeter-mined the spy's death, and the pinprick from enemy A preempted the poison from enemy B.

In the beginning of the movie Magnolia, a classic causal conundrum is dramatized. A fifteen-year-old boy goes up to the roof of his ten-story apartment building, ponders the abyss, and jumps to his death. Did he commit suicide? It turns out that construction workers had installed netting the day before that would have saved him from the fall, but as he is falling past the fifth story, a gun is shot from inside the building by his mother, and the bullet kills the boy instantly. Did his mother murder her son? As it turns out, his mother fired the family rifle at his drunk step-father but missed and shot her son by mistake. She fired the gun every week at approximately that time after their horrific regular argument, which the boy cited as his reason for attempting suicide, but the gun was usually not loaded. This week the boy secretly loaded the gun without telling his parents, presumably with the intent of causing the death of his stepfather. Did he, then, in fact commit suicide, albeit unintentionally?
http://science.jrank.org/pages/8555/Causation-OVERDETERMINATION-PREEMPTION.html
Jordan



Post 1

Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I probably should have put this in the Q&A section. Really, in light of those scenarios, I'm curious to know how Objectivists think they can tell what this or that cause is. I know Objectivists accept that causation is the law of identity applied to action, but that doesn't really set up a measure by which we can determine when something is or is not the cause of something else.

Jordan

Post 2

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

A spy, setting out to cross the desert with some key intelligence, fills his canteen with just enough water for the crossing and settles down for a quick nap. While he is asleep, Enemy A sneaks into his tent and pokes a very small hole in the canteen, and a short while later enemy B sneaks in and adds a tasteless poison. The spy awakes, forges ahead into the desert, and when he goes to drink from his canteen discovers it is empty and dies of thirst before he can get water. What was the cause of the spy's death?

According to the counterfactual theory, neither enemy's action caused the death. If enemy A had not poked a hole in the canteen, then the spy still would have died by poison. If enemy B had not put poison into the canteen, then he still would have died from thirst. Their actions overdeter-mined the spy's death, and the pinprick from enemy A preempted the poison from enemy B.
The cause of the spy's death was dehydration. This is the law of identity applied to action. Human bodies require hydration for life, when hydration is reduced, then human bodies will die (as it is in their "nature" to always do this in response to that). However, your example implicatively conflates causation with intention (Aristotle's final causation). Though intention is a kind of a first cause of things, it needs to be married to efficient causation in order to get anything done. In Rand's words [paraphrased]:

Wishing won't make ANYTHING so.

;-)

Ed

Post 3

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Your second case regarding the movie Magnolia doesn't seem fit for rational discussion. Instead, it seems more fit for the rhetorical parlor games of a linguistic analyst or logical positivist. There's first the craziness of a mother firing a gun at the father every week (what kind of a facsimile of reality is that?). And then, there is in this case the boy who's attempting suicide unsuccessfully, while mistakenly being killed by the mother's technically-innocent intention to let off some steam.

Gimme' a break, man!

Ed


Post 4

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To the first hypo, I have no beef that that autopsy would read that dehydration caused the death, but that's not really important here. What's important is whether Enemies A and/or B are culpable for the spy's death.

To the second hypo, yes it's far fetched, but at least in the law, it aims to isolate some tricky issues with regard to culpability. The son intended to kill himself, but he didn't intend to kill himself in the way he got killed, and he wouldn't have gotten killed had he not been shot. Did he commit suicide? Attempted suicide? No suicide at all? Accidental death?

Both examples raise the issues of when culpability should attach.

Jordan







Post 5

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A much simpler, but quite real, scenario played out in the Orange County Jail recently, resulting in an ongoing complete shakeup of the system.

A man was arrested for possession of "kiddie-porn."  There was apparently no evidence to support - and some evidence to rufute - any charge of actual child-molestation.  Held pending a hearing at the County Jail, the man was beaten to death by eight or more fellow inmates who apparently believed that the man was a child-molestor, having allegedly been told so by a deputy-guard, who played video games only about forty feet from the lethal and prolonged beating while it was taking place.  The inmates apparently also believed that the deputy intended for the man to be killed, having had a long relationship with the guards, in which they were rewarded for beating up other prisoners and punished or beaten up themselves if they refused to do what the guards wanted. 

(A video of the area apparently mysteriously disappeared, and none of the deputies has been charged with any crime, while I believe that eight of the inmates are facing possible murder charges.)

It seems that the autopsy was not able to determine the precise cause of death, as the injuries were so many and serious that many different possible combinations of them could have killed the man.

Now it gets complicated, from a causational and legal responsibility standpoint:

A>  The inmates would not have attacked the man - at least not lethally - without the alleged sanction and implied coercion of the guard. 

B> It's possible that no particular injury or all the injuries together created by any single inmate would have been sufficient to cause death. 

C> And, the injuries were apparently much more serious than required to cause death.  Thus, several different combinations of acts by the inmates could separately be assigned as causes of death, even though only one death was actually caused. 

D> And, in several cases, it's likely that the injuries caused by one or more of the inmates would not, either separately or together, have caused the death. 

E> And, in yet more complications, some of the inmates were fairly clearly intent upon murder, while others simply participated because they knew that if they didn't, then they would be beaten up themselves.


Post 6

Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

There seems to be non-equivalence between causation and culpability. Indeed, to presume that causation invokes culpability would be to bow one's head in the direction of a Primacy of Consciousness. Rephrasing the title of this thread to overdetermination and culpability seems appropriate here (because causation doesn't necessarily entail any culpability). 

Looking down the other end of the barrel, we can ask whether culpability entails causation (which is the basis for your proposed-though-just-resolved Objectivist paradox). If I'm not mistaken, there are 3 epistemological thresholds which law-enforcers use in order to assess culpability in murder cases:

1. means
2. motive
3. opportunity

If causation is to be tied-in to one of these 3 thresholds, then I foresee it only attached to #1 (the "means"). It seems that you are trying to tie causation to the motive.

Is that a fair assessment so far?

Ed


Post 7

Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 10:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed,

Oh, culpability and causation are different. And I took it as accepted that culpability requires causation. 

If I'm not mistaken, there are 3 epistemological thresholds which law-enforcers use in order to assess culpability in murder cases:

1. means
2. motive
3. opportunity
This is not how the law views culpability. None of those is necessary in estabilishing culpability. To backup a moment, a crime requires that (1) a person (2) acts (3) intentionally (4) to cause (4) a harmful result. If we miss any one of these factors, then a person is not culpable, i.e., not guilty. I am not trying to tie causation to motive (or means or opportunity for that matter).  I'm simply requiring causation of culpability.

The paradox isn't solve yet. Did Enemy A and/or B cause the spies death such that they are culpable?

Jordan



Post 8

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

This example still requires the marriage of "final" with "efficient" causation. However, the Law of Causality doesn't.

Ed

Post 9

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm still talking about culpability. Wouldn't you agree that culpability encompasses final causation?

Jordan


Post 10

Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry to be addressing your initial post so late, Jordan. But in answer to your question, "Did he, then, in fact commit suicide, albeit unintentionally?", I would say no, because one doesn't commit suicide unintentionally. The boy tried to commit suicide by killing himself in a fall, but he didn't succeed in that attempt. The actual cause of his death was accidental.

- Bill

Post 11

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Bill,

Yeah I agree with you. I think a better question for that hypo is whether the mom with the shotgun should be culpable for killing her attempted-suicidal son. Eh. The other hypo is way more fun.

Jordan



Post 12

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah I agree with you. I think a better question for that hypo is whether the mom with the shotgun should be culpable for killing her attempted-suicidal son. Eh. The other hypo is way more fun.
Well, she didn't intend to kill him, did she? She didn't think the gun was loaded, and didn't have any reason to think so. The most you could get her for is failure to check the gun to make sure it wasn't loaded, but even that would be stretching it, because she knew it wasn't loaded the last time she checked it. So, she wasn't really at fault here, since her son tricked her and, in doing so, inadvertently caused his own death.

- Bill

Post 13

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Right again. My poor memory remembered this scenario differently.

Again, that first scenario is far more difficult/fun.

Jordan

Post 14

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

=========
I'm still talking about culpability. Wouldn't you agree that culpability encompasses final causation?
=========

Yes, but I was addressing your point at the beginning ...


=========
I believe they require a deeper understanding of causality than Objectivism has previously set forth.
=========

These examples don't require a deeper understanding of causality. As Bill said of the 2nd hypothetical, accidents aren't ever caused intentionally (because that's not internally consistent with the idea: "accident").

As far as the 1st hypothetical goes, if you have to blame anyone, then you have to blame the guy that caused the dehydration -- because the dehydration caused the death (as I explained). The guy who poisoned the canteen could be convicted of attempted murder, though.

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

In law, to find someone culpable, he has to have caused the evil act. To determine whether he caused the act, we ask: **but for his act, would X have died?** (it's more nuanced than that, but let's set that aside.) If the answer is yes, then the guy is NOT culpable under the law.

With example 1, it gets weird. Applying the above question: But for the hole poker's act, would the spy have died? Yes, he would've been poisoned.

I suppose what I'm getting at is: I would like to here a test to replace the one surrounded in asterisks above, such that we don't get this odd little conundrum.




Post 16

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

You seem to want more from the Law of Causality than it could naturally afford. You want the Law of Culpability.

Even still, I'll attempt to meet your request to modify this principle/rule: "but for his act, would X have died" -- so that the kind of scenario which it doesn't work in is covered. here is this new (modified) set of rules for the Law of Culpability:

(1) did Y intend to harm X?
(2) did Y's actions harm X?
(3) did Y's actions harm X "in the manner intended"?
(4) if not in the manner intended, were Y's actions still actions which would be expected -- by a reasonable person -- to be harmful to X?

If the first 3 of these 4 simple conditions are met, then Y is guilty. If the last condition is required, then Y is guilty with some qualification.

Ed

Post 17

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed,

Thanks attempting to meet my request. 

So the poisoner intended to harm but did not harm and so did not harm in the manner intended, and I don't know if his actions would be deemed harmful by a reasonable person since his actions didn't come of anything. So he's not culpable under your rubric.

The hole poker is much easier. He intended harm. He actually harmed. It was in the manner so intended. And a reasonable person would be harmful to X.

Well, sucks that the poisoner gets of scot free.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 4/26, 12:30pm)


Post 18

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

You crazy, word-jousting council.

=========
So the poisoner intended to harm but did not ..., and I don't know if his actions would be deemed harmful by a reasonable person since his actions didn't come of anything. So he's not culpable under your rubric.
=========

Thanks for pointing out this imperfection in my culpability rubric. Here's a perfected version:

(1) did Y intend to harm X?
(2) did Y's actions harm X?
(3) did Y's actions harm X "in the manner intended"?
(4) if Y's actions didn't harm X, either at all or not in the manner intended, were Y's actions still actions which would be expected -- by a reasonable person -- to be harmful to X?

Ed

Post 19

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan wrote, "In law, to find someone culpable, he has to have caused the evil act. To determine whether he caused the act, we ask: **but for his act, would X have died?** (it's more nuanced than that, but let's set that aside.) If the answer is yes, then the guy is NOT culpable under the law."

What is the evil act? Suppose I point a gun at you that I know is loaded and pull the trigger, but the gun jams. Am I culpable for an evil act? Yes. What is the evil act? The evil act is my attempt to murder you. And that's true even if you get hit and killed by a truck at the same time. I didn't cause your death -- the truck did -- but I am still culpable, because I was the cause of an evil act. My attempt to murder you is the evil act for which I am culpable, even though it didn't harm you -- didn't actually cause your death.

- Bill

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.