Philosophical Question of the Day
Scott Adams, the artist behind the Dilbert comic, ask this Philosophical Question of the Day
If a man goes into the forest and pokes a bear with a sharp stick, and the bear kills the man, whose fault is it?
Don’t read this next part until you have made up your mind whether it is the man’s fault or the bear’s fault.
Okay, you may continue.
Now substitute an irrational human being for the bear. The guy with the stick knows he’s dealing with an irrational and potentially violent person, and he pokes him with the stick anyway. Just like the bear, the irrational guy kills the guy who poked him.
Whose fault is it now? Is it the fault of the irrational guy or the fault of the unwise guy who poked him?
Okay, now suppose that the irrational guy is a specific kind of irrational guy – a literal believer in his faith. This is not an insult to the religious because even the Pope endorses the view that faith does not spring from rational thought. And let’s say this particular faith says that if ye poketh me with a sharpeth object, woe unto you, for I shall killeth!
And let’s say the irrational person is completely rational in every way that is not related to his religion. He might even be an engineer or a doctor. But his irrational side is well understood by all. Now the guy with the sharp stick pokes him and gets killed.
Whose fault is it?
What’s your opinion? I’d like to get a discussion going on this if we can. I’ll share my view once the discussion starts.
Loading ...
Oct 31st, 2006 at 17:34:49
My answer can be found here in my own blog, or just read it below.
First let me say that I feel in the first part that the Bear is in NO WAY responsible. A bear is an animal. It cannot be held to a human cognizant level of responsibility. You or I on the other hand “in my opinion” (must ad this caveat…and please assume it from here on in.) can be held responsible for our actions and always should in so much as we are adult and cognizantly aware of them.
Moving right along to the second part of the question. I believe both parties bear responsibility for their own actions. irrational or not, I do not believe this excuses the act of killing some one. However I do not believe the POKER is entirely free of responsibility either. I believe it is not a wise choice to poke an irrational person with a stick “literal or not” but it still does not give the irrational person licence to kill. I can be held responsible for how I my actions you feel, but not how YOU act upon those feelings.
And thus we move on to the third case in point. I believe this still does not move beyond my prior explanation. It still may not be a wise choice to poke a stick at a religiously or otherwise irrational person, however merely stating “touch me and I will kill you” does not thereby give you licence to do so free of responsibility if you are poked. But as I said It is still not a wise choice to poke this person and you Should expect some form of drastic response form a person saying this id \f you choose to “poke them.”
HedoSean
Nov 1st, 2006 at 00:11:40
I agree with HedoSean.
Nov 1st, 2006 at 01:19:09
i blame the stick.
Nov 2nd, 2006 at 00:07:08
I, too, agree with Sean. In my opinion, each person is responsible for their own actions, and no matter the mental state, should not be excused for their actions. If you kill someone, it’s your fault, no matter what the other person did or what your mental state. It really irks me when lawyers use the mental illness defense. However, while each person should be held accountable for their actions, they person who provoked the other probably got what was coming to them
Nov 2nd, 2006 at 13:34:23
I agree with you in part. If someone is incapable of understanding what life is, or incapable from determining right from wrong, then the defense is clearly useful.
For example, if a 16 year old boy with severe down syndrome or autism is provoked to the point of harming or killing another person, can that mentally retarded person be responsible for their actions?
I do agree that it is used more often than it should and I know for a fact that the court system and jurors are influenced by emmotions more than the lawyers should be allowed to…but thats another discussion.