Who's at fault? (hypothetical.)

Post Reply New Topic

Two people are in bar having a pleasant debate. One person says that arguing is a tool that can be used to save your own life. The other person completely disagrees and says that arguing will make things worse, and be the thing that actually causes your death. The two eventually start arguing over who is right. After an hour of this, a guy in the back yells "ENOUGH!" and shoots them both. Who is more responsible, the person who was wrong, or the person who was a hypocrite?

the guy who shot them

what a maniac

Y'know, depending on how the argument by the "argument is a tool that can save your life" guy worked, I might feel sympathetic to the guy who shot him, but.... I would not think the argument guy is at fault. If the hypothetical nature of the gun was well explained before the shot, then I might feel different about the matter, depending on whether we can consider the guy who was wrong to have effectively consented to being shot.

That being said, if in this situation, a mere threat of violence would defeat the opponent's argument, then I would consider the the threatener blameless given that the threat was rhetoric employed to disprove an argument.

"the guy who was wrong?"

Can't answer you, sorry.

All in moderation. They were both wrong. <.<

I don't know, but I think the third guy won

One person says that arguing is a tool that can be used to save your own life - Not it is the tool to save your life in every case it requires it.
The other person completely disagrees and says that arguing will make things worse, and be the thing that actually causes your death. - Though not neccessarily by gunfire.

If we are taking the gunman out of blame's path, they are equally responsible for their deaths, which could (or could not) be through creating tedium or noise, or indeed through the second man conspiring with the gunman, as may be hinted in "arguing will make things worse, and be the thing that actually causes your death."

But to blindly speculate "ENOUGH!" may simply be referring to the number of bullets left in the gunman's weapon, he could just be going around shooting people in bars, and took an hour to wait for the heat to pass before he made his next killing of the day.

The question determines if you are willing to apply a moral judgement within your logic.

There is no answer present for equal blame, so on an amoral view you cannot answer.
I did vote, but only because there was no "no answer or shared blame" vote.

No one is responsible for being the victim of a third party's egregious fault. From a logical proposition, it is little different than inquiring whether the rapists responsibility is diminished by the victim's clothing and appearance, or the robber's responsibility is diminished by the homeowner's failure to lock the front door.

Could the victims have done something to prevent the occurence of the crime? Very likely. But the failure to do so does not make them authors of their own misfortune.

The hypocrite, because he KNEW what would happen.

Pretty obvious... unless this thread is some clever game I did not recognize.