Whilst reading a light-hearted book on philosophy by Peter Cave I came across this rather interesting example of actions, intentions and their consequences.
Three singers, June, Gill and Jon, are treking across the desert. June and Gill dislike Jon but have not voiced their dislike to each other. They each and separately decide to kill him.
June sneaks out of her tent at night and puts poison into Jon’s water bottle. Gill, not realising what June has done, sneaks out of her tent and cracks the bottom of Jon’s water bottle so that the water leaks out. They both pack up the following morning and leave before Jon awakens.
Jon wakes up in the morning to find his water bottle empty and dies of dehydration.
Can either June or Gill be held accountable for Jon’s murder? Is it actions or consequences that matter?
Loading ...
They both wanted him dead; they both did things that were intended to kill him; they both got the desired outcome. Lock ‘em up!
Indeed. Intentions are a vital part of guilt but what about the result of their actions as opposed to the end result? In this case June would argue that Jon never drank the poison. Gill would claim that she only deprived Jon of poisoned water. They’re both right, but still Jon is dead. In fact Gill could even claim that she ‘saved’ Jon from drinking water that would have surely killed him. So are they both guilty of attempted murder only?
Maybe you should have been a smart-ass barrister?
However as I’ve found out, other parts of the world don’t do barristers, courts etc. Where I am, the locals would put old tyres over Gill and June’s heads, torch them and that would be that! They should at least have a fair trial first and a chance for mob-anger to subside!
You’re absolutely right…. context and environment would impact how Gill and June are viewed and how quickly they are judged. I think it’s good that we have the ability to think before going along with mob rule…