Smullyan's Paradox

[Gori the Grey]

So I'll try to jump start us again. I asked:

If there is no B, but when C goes to drink he suspects the water is poisoned and throws it away, then is A guilty of C's death?

Yes; his dehydration was caused by there being poison in his water. This was caused by A. Therefore A caused C's death.

But by the logic we've been using, wouldn't we have to consider this suicide? C had water available to him (poisoned water is water) and chose not to avail himself of it in a circumstance where lack of water causes death.

Then back to the actual case; now put B back in. Are we going to say that B caused C's death because he deprived him of one of his ways of dying (and the one he didn't favor, faced with a choice)?

Or, alternately, lovett, you can answer what I thought was my hard moral question to you: how is arranging someone's world so they will die substantially different from killing that person?

 

[schlaufuchs]

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?

Maybe he died of dehydration exacerbated by the (weak) poison?

EDIT* Damnit! probably 5984765478 crossposts