Smullyan's Paradox

[Borachio]

Is that a rather complicated way of saying "Yes"?

 

[Leoreth]

Although there is a dead man, both of his killers can legitimately claim to be innocent of having caused his death. How could such a thing be?

The definition of a paradox is a situation that includes a contradiction with no apparent solution.

That's not the case here. You can simply reject one of the men's "legitimate claims" to be innocent, which is exactly what our current legal system does. That's pretty straightforward.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not wedded to the word paradox. I've called it a brain teaser, a logic puzzle.

For myself, I have no trouble considering it a paradox under the following definition:

An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true

If you think Smellyan's Paradox is not a paradox, you'll have to take that up with Smellyan.

I just thought the participants in thread were missing the fundamental kind of fun that this hypothetical was designed to allow for: the challenge of pointing out where in it the logical fault enters.

The participants in the thread were having a different kind of fun with it: using it to reflect on the difference between law and ethics.

By all means, carry on! I once used a socket wrench to drive a light nail into some drywall.

 

[Flying Pig]

If B did not know that the water was poisoned, he had mens rea and actus reus, and so murdered C. If B knew that the water was poisoned, he should have warned C; he had actus reus and is guilty of murder by gross negligence because his method of 'saving' C was so monumentally stupid.

This isn't a paradox; it's just an interesting problem.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Which action caused C's death? Poisoning the water? Or puncturing the canteen?

 

[Borachio]

Both and neither? Both, since C is dead, through one cause or the other. Neither, since if it was one it wasn't the other.

I'm confused.

 

[Flying Pig]

Which action caused C's death? Poisoning the water? Or puncturing the canteen?

Cause of death was dehydration, so the act which deprived him of water with intent to kill him was murderous.

There's a similar one where Jones comes home to his flat drunk one night and starts arguing with the wife, and pulls his shotgun - which he believes to be unloaded - out of the cupboard and starts waving it around. However, it's not unloaded, and it goes off while it's pointing out of the window. In a further twist of fate, a body is later found on the pavement below full of shotgun pellets - somebody has clearly jumped out of a higher floor with the intent to kill themselves, and been killed on the way down by Jones' shotgun!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Which act deprived him of water?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Both and neither? Both, since C is dead, through one cause or the other. Neither, since if it was one it wasn't the other.

I'm confused.

Then you're experiencing it as a paradox (conundrum, brain teaser, logic puzzle).

Since several participants report not experiencing it that way, I keep trying to frame it up so that they can have the fun of doing so.

 

[Flying Pig]

Which act deprived him of water?

OK; 'the act which caused him to die of dehydration was murderous' - poisoning his water didn't cause him to die of dehydration.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Which act caused him to die of dehydration? Did draining his canteen of poisoned water cause him to die of dehydration?

 

[lovett]

Both and neither? Both, since C is dead, through one cause or the other. Neither, since if it was one it wasn't the other.

I'm confused.

Let's clear up this confusion.

C died. C had a particular death; a death caused by dehydration. What caused this particular death was C's lack of water. That C's canteen had a hold in it caused C to lack water. B caused the whole in C's canteen. Therefore, B caused C's particular death; the death by dehydration (causation is transitive).

If B had not made a hole in C's canteen then C would still have died. But C would have died a different death; C would have died of poisoning. In this case, A would have caused C's death. But in the actual world C did not die this death. In the actual world, C died a death caused by dehydration. So even though C would have died whatever B did, it was B who caused his actual death.

And this is what we find intuitive, and it is what the law says. The alleged problem is cleared up entirely by distinguishing between different particular deaths. By individuating deaths on, as it were, a more fine-grained mode.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Is poisoned water still water?

If B hadn't made the hole, and C drank the poisoned water, would it have hydrated him?

 

[Flying Pig]

Irrelevant, because he would not have died of dehydration had he done so, and therefore poisoning the water cannot be said to have led to C's death by dehydration.

 

[lovett]

Yes, poisoned water is still water. Yes, if C had drank the poisoned water it would have hydrated him. Then the poison would have caused him to die through some mechanism or other; it isn't specified how. This would be a different death from a death by dehydration. You are trying to find a problem where there isn't one, unfortunately.

Let's think about a more interesting scenario. Suppose the poison works like this; it actually causes death by dehydration. Can we, in this case, distinguish C's possible death from dehydration by poison from his actual death by dehydration by lack of water? Yes, of course we can. We just did. There are many ways to distinguish them. One involves poison, the other doesn't. One involves a lack of water, the other doesn't. At the least, in every case, we can distinguish the deaths by the particulars involved.

 

[Souron]

Irrelevant, because he would not have died of dehydration had he done so, and therefore poisoning the water cannot be said to have led to C's death by dehydration.

Unless the poison in question was salt...

 

[Flying Pig]

See Lovett's post.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

So? I don't see a problem with this.

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

 

[Souron]

Yes, poisoned water is still water. Yes, if C had drank the poisoned water it would have hydrated him. Then the poison would have caused him to die through some mechanism or other; it isn't specified how. This would be a different death from a death by dehydration. You are trying to find a problem where there isn't one, unfortunately.

Let's think about a more interesting scenario. Suppose the poison works like this; it actually causes death by dehydration. Can we, in this case, distinguish C's possible death from dehydration by poison from his actual death by dehydration by lack of water? Yes, of course we can. We just did. There are many ways to distinguish them. One involves poison, the other doesn't. One involves a lack of water, the other doesn't. At the least, in every case, we can distinguish the deaths by the particulars involved.

But if B didn't deny C a means of hydration, did he really kill him? Salt water is not a means of hydration. Arguably no poisoned water is.

 

[timtofly]

But if B didn't deny C a means of hydration, did he really kill him? Salt water is not a means of hydration. Arguably no poisoned water is.

That is the paradox. B denied C. Negligence to consider C whether or not the outcome. A was negligent because he purposely tried to harm C especially if the poison was salt. Both A and B were not allowing C to be properly hydrated in the desert.

The paradox exist because no matter what B did the outcome would have been the same. B is guilty for just being B. That is a tough position to be in. What is the phrase..? Da** if you do and Da** if you don't. Sounds like the religious positions of some humans.