• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Smullyan's Paradox

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?
 
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? :p

EDIT* Damnit! probably 5984765478 crossposts :(
 
Back
Top Bottom