# A murderous ABC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574 "2011-06-07T01:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/41 "2011-06-08T02:48:30Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Same thing if there is no B involved, and it’s just A and C. Assume I’m C. If a guy pulls a gun on me and says “give me your wallet”, I could tell him to get lost and go to my grave knowing that A is at fault, but the better solution is to give A the wallet with the hope that he’ll go away. Giving him the wallet seems on its face value to be the action with the highest probability of me surviving the encounter. But that would imply that A is in part morally responsible for his own murder, even though he did nothing wrong. There’s absolutely no moral reason to give your wallet to someone who has no claim on it, regardless of what the effect of doing so or not will be. And so, skipping some steps of logic, it does not necessarily follow that moral responsibility attaches to those actions that give the highest probability of a good ending to a particular situation. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/42 "2011-06-08T22:42:27Z")
> [@RadicalPi](#): > > But that would imply that A is in part morally responsible for his own murder, even though he did nothing wrong. There’s absolutely no moral reason to give your wallet to someone who has no claim on it, regardless of what the effect of doing so or not will be. And so, skipping some steps of logic, it does not necessarily follow that moral responsibility attaches to those actions that give the highest probability of a good ending to a particular situation. Isn’t A the murderer? I could argue a very strong moral reason to give your wallet to someone with a gun, if you know your life is of great value - you are a brilliant medical researcher, a charasmatic leader of a good cause, or just a mom or dad. Especially a mom or dad. (Though that didn’t work so well for Bruce Wayne’s parents, did it?) Or I could argue that the (biggest) gun gives A a persuasive claim on what s/he demands - I don’t believe that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do. Furthermore, the Original Hypothetical does not pose moral responsibility as I/O: > [@](#): > > Is C in any way morally responsible for the murder of B? Partial credit is allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/43 "2011-06-09T03:44:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > A holds a gun on B and tells C, “If you don’t do what I say, I will shoot B. You will then be a murderer.” C refuses to comply, and A shoots B. Is C in any way morally responsible for the murder of B? It depends on what A tells C to do. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/44 "2011-06-09T04:07:46Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > To answer your OP: no, C, has no culpability in the murder of B. It never pays to negotiate with terrorists, and this is (at least in my mind) the scenario you have laid out. It does not matter what the act is; it is important to stand up to tyrants like A, even with such a high cost. Can you imagine how it could escalate if C acquiesces to A’s demands? Two scenarios:[ol] [li]A says “Hand over your wallet or I’ll shoot you and your kid.”[/li][li]A says “Hand over your wallet or I’ll shoot your kid.”[/li][/ol] In scenario 1 would you hand over your wallet or not? I think anybody would. Scenario 2 is the scenario set forth in the OP. The only difference between it and 1 is that your own hide is not on the line. Surely if you would acquiesce in scenario 1 then given scenario 2 you’d be quite an ass to start talking about not negotiating with terrorists, wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/45 "2011-06-09T05:24:17Z")
I’m troubled by the notion that moral responsibility is not a zero sum game. I’m not sure I know what it means. If we decided that A has a lot of responsibility and C has a little responsibility, then the responsibility has been shared. A can’t have all the responsibility, but C have some too. Actually, having typed this out, I’m rejecting the ‘not a zero sum’ argument, though I can see that reasonable people might disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/46 "2011-06-09T13:54:53Z")
Real life example: Long before she was famous, two assholes broke into Fran Drescher’s apartment, tied up her husband and put a gun to his head. They threatened to kill him if Fran didn’t have sex with one of them. She complied, fearing for her husbadn’s life. One head the gun to his head and forced him to watch while the other had sex with her. They argued in court that the sex was consensual because Fran was never threatened with harm to herself. They were found guilty, and the rapist was sentenced to over 100 years in prison. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/47 "2011-06-09T18:01:15Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Actually, I think TV shows and movies force people to make that choice all the time for dramatic effect, and they don’t cop out. ‘24’ did that so much it almost became a cliche’ on the show - Jack being forced to let the terrorists carry out an attack so he could get close to them, for example. But there was one scenario exactly as you describe - in one of the earlier seasons, Jack and his boss were told by some terrorists to come out to some industrial area, then when they go there the terrorists told Jack to have his boss kneel down. When he did, they told him to shoot him in the back of the head or they would carry out some nefarious deed. > > It was one of the most uncomfortable scenes the show ever had, because they drew it out and made it very personal. The boss at first went along, thinking they’d find some way out of it or that Jack had something up his sleeve. As he realized that Jack was really boxed into a corner and was considering doing it, he started getting scared and pleading for his life. This was a recurring character that we had followed for an entire season - not just a red shirt parachuted in for the episode. > > Jack shot him in the back of the head. Very well acted by Keifer Sutherland, and I think it was the incident that made his character go a little nuts for the rest of the series. > > After that, there were many more scenes like that, but they usually involved random bystanders sacrificed for the ‘greater good’. Now, you’re making me want to start watchign that show. After Lost, I’m just sick of shows that start off really good and then jump the shark as soon as the writers realize they have run out of matieral but not ratings. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/48 "2011-06-10T15:04:40Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > I thought you were asking about a murderous American Born Chinese (ABC). I thought it was going to be about Britain’s Alien Big Cats on a rampage. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/49 "2011-06-10T22:00:28Z")
I thought ABC stood for something else, but best not to say it in mixed company… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/50 "2011-06-13T02:22:28Z")
Possibly. C bears moral responsibility for his own choices. Whether that responsibility includes a measure of culpability for the murder requires more context than is supplied in the OP. The fact that A is the agent pulling the trigger does not grant a moral “free pass” to C. Consider an alternative presentation: [ul][li]A is driving a car directly at B[/li][li]B i sunaware of the car, but C is aware[/ul][/li]C takes no action; A runs over B and kills him. C shouts a warning, but B reacxts too slowly; A runs over B and kills him. Does C have the same culpability in each case? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/51 "2011-06-13T02:38:36Z")
[QUOTE=Spiritus Mundi] Does C have the same culpability in each case? [/QUOTE] No. C is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to save A. There could be any number of reasons why C didn’t shout a warning, or leap to save B…the most likely being that real life isn’t a movie, and people freeze or dither, not knowing what to do or how to do it. None of which makes C responsible for what happens to B. If A is deliberately trying to hit B, then A is, again, the one who bears the responsibility for his or her actions. If A is just not paying attention, and if B isn’t paying sufficient attention to see the danger, then A is being negligent, and still bears primary responsibility for what happens, with perhaps a bit splashing on B for not paying attention to his or her own danger. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/52 "2011-06-13T03:12:31Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No. C is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to save A. Your morality seems indistinguishable from pure self-interest. That is certainly one model, but not one that I suspect many people would find compelling. > [@](#): > > There could be any number of reasons why C didn’t shout a warning, or leap to save B…the most likely being that real life isn’t a movie, and people freeze or dither, not knowing what to do or how to do it. Why complicate matters by hypothesizing a “C” unable to act or uncertain how to utter a warning shout? For teh sake of clarity, let’s just allow C to make a choice between shouting an intelligible warning or doing nothing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/53 "2011-06-13T03:26:09Z")
[QUOTE=Spiritus Mundi] Your morality seems indistinguishable from pure self-interest. That is certainly one model, but not one that I suspect many people would find compelling. [/QUOTE] And your morality seems to be directed towards some sort of collective responsibility. I don’t believe in collective responsibility. I also don’t give a shit if many or any people find it compelling. I am curious as to why you think C is responsible for the actions of A. C isn’t driving the car. Why is C responsible, MORALLY, for what A does to B? Why is C required or compelled to act to save B? What if C freezes? Still responsible? Who decides? You? Me? How do we decide moral responsibility for another? How do we decide why C didn’t shout a warning? The only one who can decide if C is morally responsible is C, because only C knows why they did what they did. > [@](#): > > Why complicate matters by hypothesizing a “C” unable to act or uncertain how to utter a warning shout? For teh sake of clarity, let’s just allow C to make a choice between shouting an intelligible warning or doing nothing. Why change the OP if not to make whatever point you thought you were making? I did it for the same reason you did…to make a point. In the real world one of the primary reasons C might not act is because they would freeze up or dither…not because they didn’t care or whatever you were getting at. Even if C did nothing and it wasn’t because they froze or dithered, they still have no requirement to shout a warning. They aren’t compelled to shout a warning. They aren’t responsible for the events…A is ultimately responsible, whether they are pulling the trigger on a gun or driving their car deliberately into another. Since only C would know why they did or didn’t shout a warning, only they can REALLY be the judge of whether or not they have some moral responsibility in the situation. Not you and not me. WE can only know that A is responsible for killing B. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/54 "2011-06-13T03:48:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And your morality seems to be directed towards some sort of collective responsibility. Not at all. You are imagining things. > [@](#): > > I am curious as to why you think C is responsible for the actions of A. I don’t. C is responsible for his own choices. > [@](#): > > Why is C required or compelled to act to save B? Why is anyone morally obligated to do anything? > [@](#): > > How do we decide why C didn’t shout a warning? The only one who can decide if C is morally responsible is C, because only C knows why they did what they did. Hmmm - well, we are not required to. But if we don’t want to determine whether or not C bears some moral responsibility we should probably not be posting in this thread. The OP asked a question. It seems rude to take up everyone’s time if we don’t intend to answer it. Why are you here? > [@](#): > > Why change the OP if not to make whatever point you thought you were making? I did it for the same reason you did…to make a point. In the real world one of the primary reasons C might not act is because they would freeze up or dither…not because they didn’t care or whatever you were getting at. I get that, but it makes the question of moral obligation rather trivial. **“Is ‘C’ culpable for being unable to act”** strikes me as a very different (and not particularly interesting) variation on the question. If you wish to pursue it, though, then be my guest. My answer would be, “no”. People bear no moral responsibility for not taking actions they are incapable of taking. > [@](#): > > Even if C did nothing and it wasn’t because they froze or dithered, they still have no requirement to shout a warning. In a moral system in which we have no obligations whatsoever to others that would be true. I personally find calling such an ethos _moral_ to be oxymoronic. > [@](#): > > Since only C would know why they did or didn’t shout a warning, only they can REALLY be the judge of whether or not they have some moral responsibility in the situation. Not you and not me. WE can only know that A is responsible for killing B. If you wish to be consitent, you should probably argue that we cannot know that. Why are we privileged to judge the morality of A’s actions but not C’s actions? Surely "only A would know why . . . " Then again - that would make your answer to teh OP “we cannot know”. Instead, you say “no”. So apparently you feel quite comfortable making the judgment, but only on one side of the coin. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/55 "2011-06-13T04:13:18Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I am curious as to why you think C is responsible for the actions of A. C isn’t driving the car. Why is C responsible, MORALLY, for what A does to B? After a tad of an absence here, I think this makes clear our difference. I agree with you that C isn’t morally responsible for the actions of A. C isn’t morally responsible for killing B, C’s only responsibility can lie in his or her own actions as to B. So any responsibility C has isn’t in the death of B, it is in failing to prevent the death of B. Which is why, returning to the OP, I would change my answer - the OP asked if C is responsible for the murder of B. S/He isn’t. However s/he can bear moral responsibility for not preventing the death of B; the responsibility for the murder is A’s alone. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/56 "2011-06-13T04:24:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Which is why, returning to the OP, I would change my answer - the OP asked if C is responsible for the murder of B. S/He isn’t. However s/he can bear moral responsibility for not preventing the death of B; the responsibility for the murder is A’s alone. I’ll buy this formulation: there are distinctions between different types of moral responsibility. So A is guilty. Now that we have that out of the way, what about C? I’m a consequentialist. Say MfM is C. If my action or inaction probabilistically leads to the death of another, then I am culpable: I am connected with the death. It doesn’t matter if the action involves me handing over my wallet or anything else: it’s a messy world and I’m not going to bury my head in the sand by artificially ruling out vast areas of moral culpability. Actions have consequences. That said, I’d be reluctant to extend this moral framework to others, assuming they obey the law. And not everyone has utilitarian leanings. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/57 "2011-06-13T04:47:54Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > A holds a gun on B and tells C, “If you don’t do what I say, I will shoot B. You will then be a murderer.” C refuses to comply, and A shoots B. Is C in any way morally responsible for the murder of B? > [@Spiritus Mundi](#): > > Possibly. C bears moral responsibility for his own choices. Whether that responsibility includes a measure of culpability for the murder requires more context than is supplied in the OP. The fact that A is the agent pulling the trigger does not grant a moral “free pass” to C. Consider an alternative presentation: > > ``` > A is driving a car directly at B > B is unaware of the car, but C is aware > > ``` > > C takes no action; A runs over B and kills him. > C shouts a warning, but B reacts too slowly; A runs over B and kills him. > > Does C have the same culpability in each case? To be fair, these 2 scenarios seem different. The OP adds blackmail to the quandary and implies some level of consequence to C, though it could be trivial. I think most would agree that if C can prevent a death, save a life or act in such a way so that a murder won’t occur (in all cases without inconvenience or exertion) then he should. So that’s one part of the puzzle. But from there it’s a slippery slope to “Handing over your wallet”, “Participating in armed robbery under 3rd party duress”, or even “Socialized medicine.” Joking aside, I see such causal chains as features of the human condition. I also take the more unusual view (or rather, a more unusual definition) that one can choose the lesser of 2 evils while still being morally culpable for the harms of one’s choice. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/58 "2011-06-13T22:28:52Z")
> [@](#): > > To be fair, these 2 scenarios seem different. You are correct. I did not mean to imply that my formulation was identical, only that it might help clarify the question of whether C bore any responsibility for teh outcomes of his own choices. > [@](#): > > I think most would agree that if C can prevent a death, save a life or act in such a way so that a murder won’t occur (in all cases without inconvenience or exertion) then he should. Most, perhaps, but not \*\*xtisme \*\*. Pointing out that element of the “C bears no moral responsibility” position was exactly why I suggest a recasting of the scenario as a perhaps interesting exercise. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/59 "2011-06-14T00:07:52Z")
[QUOTE=Spiritus Mundi] Most, perhaps, but not xtisme . Pointing out that element of the “C bears no moral responsibility” position was exactly why I suggest a recasting of the scenario as a perhaps interesting exercise. [/QUOTE] See, you don’t actually understand my position at all. ‘Should act’ does not equal ‘moral responsibility’. You don’t seem to grasp this rather key point, and I’m at a loss to explain it to you when it’s obvious you don’t understand what I’ve already written in this thread. You can tweak the scenario however you like, but in the end it’s A who is killing B. Unless you tweak it so that it doesn’t resemble the original OP, in which case you are asking a totally different question and will get totally different answers. If A is the one killing B, then A is responsible, regardless of what C does or doesn’t do. If C COULD or SHOULD save B is irrelevant to moral responsibility for B’s death…that lies solely on A. -XT ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574/60 "2011-06-14T00:14:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > See, you don’t actually understand my position at all. ‘Should act’ does not equal ‘moral responsibility’. OK you have confused me here. What does moral responsibility mean to you if not to describe a situation where you should do something? My ethical code and morals tell me what I should do in a situation. Often my self interest tells me something different. My legal responsibility is a third thing to consider that may differ from both of the above. Though all three obviously interact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-murderous-abc/584574.md?page=4)