Hmmm—interesting point with the guy who killed. As I mentioned before—I don’t think there’s one rule to rule them all”.
In my mind, “targetted” is worse than “non-targetted” but there are mitigating circumstances due to other social rules (eg “person B is a policeman killing a dangerous guy waving a loaded gun at a crowd” is less worse than “drunk-driver that killed a guy on the road”)
Was your person B killing for the purposes of personal gain? I think that may tip the balance for me. In a pure application of just the rule we’ve been discussing—if the “action” performed was purely for personal gain, then I’d hold person B more culpable than person A (though A’s not off the books entirely).
Well, so, first off, I do not have privileged access to person B’s purposes. So the most honest answer to your question is “How would I know?”
But, leaving that aside and going with inferences… well, my instinct is to assume that he wasn’t. But, thinking about that, it’s pretty clear to me that what underlies that instinct is something like “I like person B and consider him a decent chap. A priori, a decent chap would not kill someone else for the purposes of personal gain. Therefore, person B did not kill for the purposes of personal gain.”
Which makes me inclined to discard that instinct for purposes of analysis like this.
Person B was a soldier at the time, and the act was a predictable consequence of becoming a soldier. And at least one of the reasons he became a soldier in the first place was because being a soldier provided him with certain benefits he valued. But there were no particular gains that derived from the specific act of killing.
So… I dunno… you tell me? He received personal gains from being in the environment that led him to pull the trigger, and was aware that that was a plausible consequence of being in that environment, so I guess I’d say that yes, he killed for purposes of personal gain, albeit indirectly.
But I suspect you’re now going to tell me that, well, if he was a soldier in a military action, that’s different. Which it may well be.
Mostly, I think the “for purposes of personal gain” test just isn’t very useful, in that even my own purposes are cognitively impenetrable most of the time, and other people’s purposes are utterly opaque to me.
Yes, that one definitely sounds like it falls into grey area. I think the “gain” one only works well if the personal gain is clear-cut. It’s a heuristic, not a hard-edged rule
eg killing somebody to gain their money (to spend on beer and hookers) is generally considered wrong. Killing somebody to stop the performing other bad acts is generally less so. Killing somebody to gain their money to buy medicine for the sick… who knows?
I get the feeling that the rules have a fuzzy-edge so that we can deal with the human-error-margin involved. As you say—often we can only guess at the real motives behind other people’s actions—and our guesses may well be wrong. It means we’re open to interpreting things because we want them a certain way, rather than because they definitely are, but it’s possibly the best we can do with the information we have.
Sure, if we try to come up with hard-edged rules at the level of the superficial form of the act (e.g., “don’t kill people”), we wind up in a huge tangle because of the “human error margin”—that is, the complexity of behavior.
For legal purposes we have to do it that way, and law is consequently a huge tangle.
For purposes of figuring out what the right thing to do next is, I mostly think it’s the wrong way to go about it altogether.
Hmmm—interesting point with the guy who killed. As I mentioned before—I don’t think there’s one rule to rule them all”.
In my mind, “targetted” is worse than “non-targetted” but there are mitigating circumstances due to other social rules (eg “person B is a policeman killing a dangerous guy waving a loaded gun at a crowd” is less worse than “drunk-driver that killed a guy on the road”)
Was your person B killing for the purposes of personal gain? I think that may tip the balance for me. In a pure application of just the rule we’ve been discussing—if the “action” performed was purely for personal gain, then I’d hold person B more culpable than person A (though A’s not off the books entirely).
Well, so, first off, I do not have privileged access to person B’s purposes. So the most honest answer to your question is “How would I know?”
But, leaving that aside and going with inferences… well, my instinct is to assume that he wasn’t. But, thinking about that, it’s pretty clear to me that what underlies that instinct is something like “I like person B and consider him a decent chap. A priori, a decent chap would not kill someone else for the purposes of personal gain. Therefore, person B did not kill for the purposes of personal gain.”
Which makes me inclined to discard that instinct for purposes of analysis like this.
Person B was a soldier at the time, and the act was a predictable consequence of becoming a soldier. And at least one of the reasons he became a soldier in the first place was because being a soldier provided him with certain benefits he valued. But there were no particular gains that derived from the specific act of killing.
So… I dunno… you tell me? He received personal gains from being in the environment that led him to pull the trigger, and was aware that that was a plausible consequence of being in that environment, so I guess I’d say that yes, he killed for purposes of personal gain, albeit indirectly.
But I suspect you’re now going to tell me that, well, if he was a soldier in a military action, that’s different. Which it may well be.
Mostly, I think the “for purposes of personal gain” test just isn’t very useful, in that even my own purposes are cognitively impenetrable most of the time, and other people’s purposes are utterly opaque to me.
Yes, that one definitely sounds like it falls into grey area. I think the “gain” one only works well if the personal gain is clear-cut. It’s a heuristic, not a hard-edged rule eg killing somebody to gain their money (to spend on beer and hookers) is generally considered wrong. Killing somebody to stop the performing other bad acts is generally less so. Killing somebody to gain their money to buy medicine for the sick… who knows?
I get the feeling that the rules have a fuzzy-edge so that we can deal with the human-error-margin involved. As you say—often we can only guess at the real motives behind other people’s actions—and our guesses may well be wrong. It means we’re open to interpreting things because we want them a certain way, rather than because they definitely are, but it’s possibly the best we can do with the information we have.
Sure, if we try to come up with hard-edged rules at the level of the superficial form of the act (e.g., “don’t kill people”), we wind up in a huge tangle because of the “human error margin”—that is, the complexity of behavior.
For legal purposes we have to do it that way, and law is consequently a huge tangle.
For purposes of figuring out what the right thing to do next is, I mostly think it’s the wrong way to go about it altogether.