tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5679727693156823650..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Attempted murder is not an attempt to murderAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30381324108016810132016-08-10T14:44:16.157-05:002016-08-10T14:44:16.157-05:00Right. Attempting to A = trying to A.Right. Attempting to A = trying to A.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45954967668307205382016-08-10T14:39:06.782-05:002016-08-10T14:39:06.782-05:00I see! So the issue is what you're TRYING to d...I see! So the issue is what you're TRYING to do, even though you fully intend to go into a situation where things you AREN'T trying to achieve will also be present.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-78023343204390735412016-08-10T14:36:05.510-05:002016-08-10T14:36:05.510-05:00But it's quite possible to want to have 6 marb...But it's quite possible to want to have 6 marbles without wanting to have a quantify of marbles that is one of the natural numbers. You might not care about the natural numbers, just about the 6 marbles. <br /><br />Here's a conditional test. If you don't get what you intended, you failed. Suppose that you expect the conversation to be unpleasant, but it turns out that you're wrong--it was quite pleasant. You didn't fail in any way. That shows you didn't intend an unpleasant conversation, since if you did, you failed.<br /><br />Similarly, suppose it turns out that it wasn't unjust for Chuck to kill Dave. Chuck's action of killing Dave then is not a murder. But it is still successful. Hence, what Chuck intended was Dave's death rather than Dave's unjust death. <br /><br />(You might wonder how it could turn out not to be unjust. Maybe it turns out that Dave was threatening Chuck, and Chuck had a right to kill him in self-defense, but didn't know that killing in self-defense was permissible.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-77662699801809178882016-08-10T13:29:33.446-05:002016-08-10T13:29:33.446-05:00Let me try phrasing it differently: You seem to be...Let me try phrasing it differently: You seem to be objecting to the idea that I want to have an unpleasant conversation in general. But you admit that I do want to have THIS PARTICULAR conversation which I know will certainly be unpleasant. Since THIS PARTICULAR unpleasant conversation is a member of the set "unpleasant conversations", it is surely logically impossible to want to have it without wanting to have "one of the set". It's like wanting to have 6 marbles without wanting to have a quantity of marbles that is one of the natural numbers!Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-41077283988561377472016-08-10T12:52:56.144-05:002016-08-10T12:52:56.144-05:00Again, if I know the conversation will be unpleasa...Again, if I know the conversation will be unpleasant, then either I intend an unpleasant conversation or else I don't intend that particular conversation at all. I go into it knowing full well that it will be unpleasant, and yet I still intend to engage in it.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-72312421466856965252016-08-10T12:25:33.594-05:002016-08-10T12:25:33.594-05:00It's not the right definition of murder, becau...It's not the right definition of murder, because a killing can be morally unjustified for reasons other than ones that make it a murder. <br /><br />But I am happy to grant the point for the sake of argument. It seems quite clear that just as you can intend a conversation without intending an unpleasant conversation, even when you foresee that the conversation will in fact be unpleasant, one can intend a killing without intending an unjustified killing, even when one foresees that the killing will in fact be unjustified.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-78603862762077099172016-08-10T11:55:02.639-05:002016-08-10T11:55:02.639-05:00I'm not sure I understand. I probably need to ...I'm not sure I understand. I probably need to read up some more on this distinction. To me it seems inescapably obvious that "unjustified killing" is a very good <i>definition</i> of "murder"; they are two labels for one and the same thing. No such relation holds in the teacher-student scenario....Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18049514588358707212016-08-10T08:49:52.395-05:002016-08-10T08:49:52.395-05:00Events are either coarse-grained or fine-grained.
...Events are either coarse-grained or fine-grained.<br /><br />On coarse-grained theories of events, A=B. What was the cause of the student's distress? It was A. So, A was a causing of distress. Remember Davidson's example where turning on the lights = alerting the burglar. <br /><br />On fine-grained theories of events, indeed A is not B. But neither is a particular killing identical with a particular murder. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-52393347866026650172016-08-10T08:30:22.667-05:002016-08-10T08:30:22.667-05:00I don't mean to nit-pick, but A does NOT equal...I don't mean to nit-pick, but A does NOT equal B in the student case. Unjust killing just IS murder; they are equivalent. Informing a student that they failed may CAUSE them distress, but the two events are not identical. Killing unjustly doesn't have murder as its EFFECT; it just IS murder.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-57834843844387268182016-08-09T16:48:31.453-05:002016-08-09T16:48:31.453-05:00One cannot infer "intends B" from "...One cannot infer "intends B" from "intends A" and "knows A=B". For instance:<br /> A = telling a student he failed the exam<br /> B = causing the student distress<br />I can intend to tell a student he failed the exam while knowing this will cause distress, even though I do not intend distress.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-1439271357054546942016-08-09T16:08:32.722-05:002016-08-09T16:08:32.722-05:00I think whichever grad student takes this up had b...I think whichever grad student takes this up had better read Anscombe on "Intention" first....<br /><br />Are you sure that the second case (about the inheritance) isn't an "attempt to murder"?? Chuck knows killing Dave is murder (it is wrongful killing) and he is nevertheless attempting to do it....Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.com