A well-known example of aggression is presented by Kinsella. Says he,
“A malcontent, A, purchases a remote-controlled tank. With the remote control he can steer the tank and fire its cannon. He directs the tank to blow down the walls of a neighbor’s house, destroying the house and killing the neighbor. No one would deny that A is the cause of the killing and is guilty of murder and trespass. However, after the rampage, a hatch opens in the tank, and an evil midget jumps out. It turns out, you see, that the midget could see on a screen which buttons were pressed on the remote control, and he would operate the tank accordingly. We submit that A is equally liable in both cases. From his point of view, the tank was a “black box” that he used to attain his end, regardless of whether there was a human will somewhere in the chain of causation. (Of course, the evil midget is also liable.)”
Now, if such a case was brought before you as an arbiter, who would you hold liable, and to what extent?
As of myself, I’d let A off whit no punishment at all, while the migded guy would be liable for all damage.
Both. A thought that he was killing his neighbor and did it anyway, the midget (lol) knew he was doing it, and worse yet he was doing so with the possibility of another individual taking all of the fall. It comes to an interesting point, is it the thought that counts? Or the action itself? Or a mix of both?
The story from which we are to draw our conclusions has a bias towards us indicting the remote controller man because of the leading phrase “He directs the tank to blow down the walls of a neighbor’s house”. Is this direction like when I direct a tank (that I actually drive) to blow down the wall of my neighbours house? or is it like the direction my dad gives when he shouts angrily at the TV at people doing/saying wrong things? sometimes the people he shouts at change their behaviour. is my father ‘responsible’ ?
I don’t think the story is sufficiently well fleshed out to bear the accusation that the tank was a ‘black box’ that he used to cause evil. It was a black box he hoped/ believed he was using, but in fact, a midget was using it, not him. The story tells me that the mans actions were entirely irrelevant to the tragedy that befell the neighbour.
If a witchdoctor rain dances and that day someone drowns in a flash flood caused by the monsoon starting, is the witchdoctor guilty of the crime?
You have to prove intent. Did the witch doctor intend for a monsoon or a nice rain? Did the man think he was playing a video game or did he build this tank to be able to command his hitman?
There has to be proven too the capability or causality. Rain dances haven’t been proven to work. If some primitive society believes they work, but otherwise follows libertarian principles, maybe punishing the monsoon rain dancer will work for them.
Maybe there wouldn’t be problems with the story if it was more of something we expect to happen, ever. I don’t see how either of the two will get off for this one.