good or evil: the same for everyone?

[Furby]

How many 'breaks' in your opinion then does the situation need to be separated?

I let a villain into the city and he kills everyone. Are not I just as responsible?

[OldTrees]

How many 'breaks' in your opinion then does the situation need to be separated?

I let a villain into the city and he kills everyone. Are not I just as responsible?

Each break adds a degree of separation. Letting a villain into a city does not make you just as responsible as they are for their actions. However you are responsible for letting a villain into a city.

[Furby]

So, if a known (terrorist plane is about to bomb a city) and you could have stopped it, but chose not too:

a) guilty of murder

b) guilty of letting the terrorist plane into the city

a or b?

[OldTrees]

So, if a known (terrorist plane is about to bomb a city) and you could have stopped it, but chose not too:

a) guilty of murder

b) guilty of letting the terrorist plane into the city

a or b?

B. You are guilty of what you did, not an oversimplified summary of what you did.

[Furby]

Ya, then we disagree pretty much here.

Answer is A and B in my view, but A is the more important note. You have an example to support your reasoning?

[OldTrees]

Ya, then we disagree pretty much here.

Answer is A and B in my view, but A is the more important note. You have an example to support your reasoning?

A terrorist is planning on bombing a city. You are able to stop them from entering the city. You allow them to enter the city. They change their mind and do not bomb the city.

Under my system, you are guilty for letting the terrorist into the city.
Under your system, you are guilty for bombing the city. Wait... The city wasn't bombed. How could one be guilty for something that did not happen?
My system has the benefit of never claiming guilt for something that did not happen. It comes at the cost of being more specific about what people are guilty of but the additional precision is an acceptable cost for additional accuracy.

[Furby]

Almost identified my position correctly. You get lucky they didn't bomb the city and therefor are not guilty of murder. Pretend you are responsible for making sure the president doesn't die and you go ahead and tell a bad guy the best place to shoot the president without being caught. He does it, but the president doesn't die. It is proven you told a bad guy to do this...you are just lucky the president didn't die. So, you are guilty of conspiracy and attempted murder basically.

[OldTrees]

Almost identified my position correctly. You get lucky they didn't bomb the city and therefor are not guilty of murder.

Ah. Sorry I though you were basing guilt on expected consequences. Instead you are basing on actual (thus unforeseeable) consequences.

I would like it if you explained the sophisticated version of your position. Because the naive version has the following problem:
You are buying coffee. You can pick it up with your right or left hand. Unknown to you if you pick it up with your right hand a string of consequences will lead to a successful murder 500 years from now. Hope you are a lefty!


Sidenote: My disagreement probably stems from not understanding how one can be guilty of something (immoral killing) they did not do (did not kill). However my perspective only allows 1 actor per action. Perhaps your perspective has thousands of actors per the act of raising your hand.

[Furby]

Now we are discussing a more complex issue: does the person know? Knowing if an event, A, would cause event B, thus immoral would be deem event A immoral. Not knowing would deem event A okay since you are not guilty of the murders. This is a situation where you caused the event, but unintended/unintentional/accidental/right motives

For that, I would ask you give the same example, but change it up multiple times and I will be able to explain the morality of the actions.

[OldTrees]

Now we are discussing a more complex issue: does the person know? Knowing if an event, A, would cause event B, thus immoral would be deem event A immoral. Not knowing would deem event A okay since you are not guilty of the murders. This is a situation where you caused the event, but unintended/unintentional/accidental/right motives

For that, I would ask you give the same example, but change it up multiple times and I will be able to explain the morality of the actions.

Good explanation but I ask you, why do you believe you can know the choice a Free Will will make in the future? It is impossible (without manipulating time) to know the choice a Free Will will make in the future because it is not predetermined. Hence I can know (might not but can) the future up until the next Free Will. Thus I am responsible and guilty of the consequences between my choice and the next Free Will in control of those consequences.

[Furby]

I ask you, why do you believe you can know the choice a Free Will will make in the future?

If you know pressing this button will murder 500 people, then you can know the future within your free will. If you don't know...then you don't.

[OldTrees]

I ask you, why do you believe you can know the choice a Free Will will make in the future?

If you know pressing this button will murder 500 people, then you can know the future within your free will. If you don't know...then you don't.

You said "know the future within your free will". I do not know what you meant here because we were discussing "knowing the future beyond some other free will's choice before that choice is decided".

If I have a free will then you cannot know how I will decide until I decide. The ability to know a choice before it happens is a characteristic unique to deterministic choices. (Aka predetermined choices.)

So assuming a terrorist is a free will, we cannot know whether the terrorist will bomb a city until after the terrorist makes their final decision. Thus if we base guilt off knowable consequences, we can at most be guilty for giving the terrorist the opportunity to bomb a city but cannot be guilty of the actual bombing/lack of bombing if it happens.