Smullyan's Paradox

[Mouthwash]

"At a desert oasis, A and B decide independently to murder C. A poisons C's canteen, and later B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him?

A argues that C never drank the poison. B claims that he only deprived C of poisoned water. They're both right, but still C is dead. Who's guilty?"

Now, legally, B is guilty of murder, and I think that's the correct interpretation (obviously A is still guilty of attempted murder). If B wasn't in the picture, and C tripped and fell and spilled all of his water and still died of thirst, his death would be accidental. Again, the fact that he would have died anyway is immaterial, since we're all going to die anyway, eventually. The immediate "cause" of C's death was of thirst, and that condition was directly brought about by B, ergo B is responsible for the death of C.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Doesn't really seem like a paradox to me

 

[Souron]

They both tried to kill A, so they're both equally at fault. The details of how B died are immaterial.

 

[Mouthwash]

Doesn't really seem like a paradox to me

It's an ethical and legal paradox. Is the concept hard for you to understand?

They both tried to kill A, so they're both equally at fault. The details of how B died are immaterial.

Under the eyes of the law, only the successful person is guilty of murder, while the other is guilty of attempted homicide. This is ultimately due to the limitations of the law -- it can't be proven beyond the shadow of doubt that person A had as much intention as person B to kill person C, and would have been successful had person B not intervened.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, that is quite a pickle. However, I'm not sure what there is to discuss, as the current law seems fair and right to me. B murdered C; A attempted (but failed) to murder C.

 

[lovett]

It's not a paradox. Something is a paradox if and only if there is a logical inconsistency evinced by it. It's not like every 'hard case' in ethics is paradoxical.

As for the answer, neither are guilty of murder. They are at a desert oasis. Consequently, C can't have needed an intact canteen to acquire water. There is a pool of water right there. His death of thirst was not, therefore, caused by the hole in the canteen. And nor was it caused by the water in the canteen being emptied. So neither A nor B caused C's death. Both attempted to murder C and both failed.

 

[Borachio]

So it was a case of suicide?

Can someone be convicted of (attempted) murder if their intended victim pre-empts them by committing suicide?

And A's and B's attempts (especially B's) were inane really. Given that C was clearly depressed anyway (is that why they'd decided to murder him, as a mercy killing?).

So could I be prosecuted for attempted murder if I intend to kill someone but use a useless method? Say, I try to sabotage somebody's car by placing a pencil under the wheel in the vain hope of puncturing the tyre and causing a fatal accident?

 

[Mise]

As for the answer, neither are guilty of murder. They are at a desert oasis. Consequently, C can't have needed an intact canteen to acquire water. There is a pool of water right there. His death of thirst was not, therefore, caused by the hole in the canteen. And nor was it caused by the water in the canteen being emptied. So neither A nor B caused C's death. Both attempted to murder C and both failed.

nice. But I assumed that they filled their canteens at the oasis and moved on.

 

[GhostWriter16]

B may well have known that the water was poisoned and been trying to save his life by getting rid of the poisoned water.

I think A should be guilty. B might also be guilty of attempted murder if his goal was to deprive C of water (Rather than to save him from poison) but I think A was most likely the real killer.

EDIT: Actually, B would be guilty of stealing water, not murder...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

B may well have known that the water was poisoned and been trying to save his life by getting rid of the poisoned water.

I think A should be guilty. B might also be guilty of attempted murder if his goal was to deprive C of water (Rather than to save him from poison) but I think A was most likely the real killer.

EDIT: Actually, B would be guilty of stealing water, not murder...

If C was deprived of poisoned water by B, then he didn't drink the poison that was in the water, now did he?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I find it unlikely that C would have travelled such a distance with a punctured canteen and the strong suspicion that someone wants him dead that he wouldn't have chosen to return to the desert oasis.

 

[El_Machinae]

B could attempt a pro-active defense by attempting to prove that he knew that the water was poisoned. If he's lucky, (A) would then become guilty of the murder, because (A) caused the loss of water that then caused death.

 

[TomYo689]

I think A is guilty because C is dead. Citing lovetts post he did not die because there was no water, they're at an oasis. He must have been poisoned before the little hole drained it out completely.

 

[Leoreth]

B could attempt a pro-active defense by attempting to prove that he knew that the water was poisoned.

I would say that this story has lots of ... holes in it.



YEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

 

[Borachio]

I think this thread is hilarious!

(I have nothing to add at the moment)

 

[Mouthwash]

As for the answer, neither are guilty of murder. They are at a desert oasis. Consequently, C can't have needed an intact canteen to acquire water. There is a pool of water right there. His death of thirst was not, therefore, caused by the hole in the canteen. And nor was it caused by the water in the canteen being emptied. So neither A nor B caused C's death. Both attempted to murder C and both failed.

Sorry, my mind didn't register that they were at an oasis (why did they put that in? ). It defeats the purpose of it. Just pretend that these guys were out wandering in the Sahara away from civilization.

 

[Antilogic]

When we say died of thirst, that definitely rules out he was poisoned even a little, right? Are we taking this as a legitimate and correct cause of death determined by an autopsy?

 

[Traitorfish]

EDIT: Actually, B would be guilty of stealing water, not murder...

And if I shoot somebody, I'm not guilty of murder, I'm just guilty of unsolicited bullet-donation.

 

[Gori the Grey]

B may well have known that the water was poisoned and been trying to save his life by getting rid of the poisoned water.

I think A should be guilty. B might also be guilty of attempted murder if his goal was to deprive C of water (Rather than to save him from poison) but I think A was most likely the real killer.

EDIT: Actually, B would be guilty of stealing water, not murder...

B did know the water was poisoned. It's part of his defense, as stated in the original set-up. In fact, I think it's that detail that may be necessary for understanding the matter as a paradox.

 

[TomYo689]

If anything B is property damage, but it's not his fault that the water leaked out after that