If I hired Mr. X to Kill Mr. Y, and he does am I also responsible for the murder?
I recently had this discussion and I feel that the person who commits the act of murder itself (Mr. X) is the only responsible (punishable) individual because he violated the victim’s (Mr. Y) rights. My influencing Mr. X seems irrelevant as I didn’t force him to do anything.
My opposition says that both I and Mr. X are responsible because I directly paid him. I think that such a position is illogical as there are many, many things that can produce a murderer and to single out the provider of money (and punish him) is to draw an arbitrary line between whats responsible and what isn’t.
Any opinions on the topic would be appreciated (bonus appreciation towards scholarly work on the subject).
If you want to kill a person you employ a means to achieve that result. One example would be picking up a gun and shoot them. But inanimate objects are not the only possible means; another example would be calling up a hit man and hiring them to do it for you.
In the first case you arent off the hook just becuase you used the gun to commit murder, and in the second case you are not off the hook just because you used another person to commit murder.
The hit man, like the bullet, was set into motion by your actions.
Because you used the individual as a means to an end, much like one uses a gun toward such an end. Kinsella has a paper on this, outlining his theory of causality, in which he pretty much agrees with what I just said. You might want to google it to see the underlying reasoning.
What if there’s no payment involved? What if I taunted or tempted him in shoulder-devil fashion into murder, or overcooked his steak causing him to get angry and kill someone? Would I be responsible for the murder? [^o)]
Maybe if the hitman included a provision in his contract that demanded that the client share in the responsibility if brought to court, but otherwise I don’t see how the client can be held legally responsible.
Okay, what if instead of money, you provide the hitman with some other resource, say the key to the victim’s home. (To avoid you going tangent on me: consider the key as being obtained legimitely – say, the victim is your wife, so that’s just the key to your house you are giving.) Wouldn’t you say that constitutes you as an accomplice of murder then?
If the client is actually using something to kill someone, then, to be technical, I would not say that it is the hitman that is used but rather the hitman’s action (i.e. pulling the trigger), or perhaps knowledge of that future action. This raises a much deeper question: since all human action requires means, what type of thing constitutes a means? One’s body, land, occupied space, and property in general certainly can, but someone else’s action?..[*-)] Anyway, I’m unable to think very clearly right now (and everything I’ve typed so far is probably just babbling), but I may be able to form a stronger opinion after I wake up.
Regardless, if assassination works the same way in the real world that it does in my imagination, the client probably pays the hitman not only to perform the dirty deed, but also to assume all risk and liability. Legally all responsibility is transferred to the hitman.
Perhaps it actually should be the opposite. After all, it is the intent of the one who hires a hitman which is carried out. The hitman would almost certainly have never harmed the victim if you had not paid him to. He is just a professional with a certain set of stills and equipment, and valuable ones at that. Maybe only the hirer should be punished, if it can be discovered who it is.
Um, I don’t see how this makes the employer any less liable. Their intention is to get their agent to kill whoever they wish to be killed. They are employing them as a means to achieve this end. The willigness of the agent to go along only renders them complicit as well, but in no way exonerates the employer.
What about the State? If the government hires a certain number of individuals to participate in an illegitimate war is the government no responsible for murder? It seems to me that hireing someone to kill ones spouse is wrong. What about hireing a hitman to kill a known murderer, would that be wrong.
I agree with angurs, the fallacy here seems to me that you can rightfully employ an agent to commit an aggression. An agent can never have any right that the employer does not posses. The Employer does not posses the right to murder someone, so the agent can not inherit such a right of action.
Because, such a contract is no contract, the hitman can not rely on the employers wish to validate his action, for which he is in full and solely responsible.
This is an interesting topic though, as the same argumentation - the non acting party of an unjust contract can be made responsible of the damage an alleged agent has done- because the same thing would be true for an agitator, who promotes violent action againts others.
Would such agitation be aggression? I do not think so. If we concede that every human being has a free will and is slef responsible for his/her action, it is the one that acts violent who is the aggressor, not the one that agitates.
Starting aggression is never right, so it does not matter what others say or tell you to do. Else, we would have to concede, that following orders is enough to justify any atrocity. Which I deny from the bottom of my heart.
If we claim to be individualists, we can not stop to be individualists in certain areas. The individual is the rightful possor of rights and is the only instance that acts, and if we define aggression, which i sure do, as physical violation of property, than it is only the hitman, or in case of the agitator, the individuals that, pushed up by his agitation, commit violent aggression that are responsible.
Not if you are the one that has faced a loss of property. If you are the heir of the one murdered, you have the right to kill the murder, so you can deliver this right to an agent to have him do the job for you. If you are not a part of the conflict, you have no right whatsoever as this would mean you have started an aggression which in turn makes you a murderer, if you killed the other person.
No, the government is not responsible for the killing, because the government is a group category, that can only receive rights from individuals. Now if individuals have no right to start an aggression, no other group can that non existing right be granted to. Therefor it is not the government that kills it is single people that do. It is the henchman not the government that puts anotherone from life to death. This might be a legal act, given the henchman acts as an agent of someone that has the right to kill -e.g. the heir of a murdered man, has the right to kill the murderer, so a henchman would have the right to hang the murderer as an agent of the heir. But states are just categories of mind, just like a wood is not an existing entity but is build out of trees(which are entities). So the state has no right to kill, unless he receives that right from an individual that possesses it. Now, an individual possesses the right to defend himself against aggression unless he has started it. So, if an individual explicitly wants the state to kill on behalf of him, he can do so, but has to decide on every single instance again.