The Forging of a Hammer

[Infant]

Suppose a living and active being were to forge a hammer . . .

Then, a hundred years later, this hammer is used by one person to kill another person. To what extent should the original forger of the hammer take blame for the death?

Does your answer change if we say the forger knew of the nature and potential of people to kill each other? What if the forger had a simulation machine that told them there was a 99% chance of such an event occuring? Suppose said machine could even predict precisely who and where the crime would occur, does the forger take blame then?

What if the crime occured only a day after the forging of the hammer? What then? Suppose it occured a hindred thousand years into the future, all other factors consistent?

Supposing such prediction machines existed, should people be held accountable for planning killings in the future using probability? Say someone kept forging tools that had high chances of leading to specific people getting killed in the future? Say another forged tools by necessity but the machine kept saying there was a 99% probability of their tools being used to kill? Should politicians and leaders be held accountable if they do things that lead to tragedy but they didn't consult the machines? Should they have consulted the machines and should they be held guilty for the full consequences of their actions since the machines could have predicted the consequences?

Please note that these are impractical questions in the secular world

 

[Avani]

Suppose a living and active being were to forge a hammer . . .

Then, a hundred years later, this hammer is used by one person to kill another person. To what extent should the original forger of the hammer take blame for the death?

Does your answer change if we say the forger knew of the nature and potential of people to kill each other? What if the forger had a simulation machine that told them there was a 99% chance of such an event occuring? Suppose said machine could even predict precisely who and where the crime would occur, does the forger take blame then?

What if the crime occured only a day after the forging of the hammer? What then? Suppose it occured a hindred thousand years into the future, all other factors consistent?

Supposing such prediction machines existed, should people be held accountable for planning killings in the future using probability? Say someone kept forging tools that had high chances of leading to specific people getting killed in the future? Say another forged tools by necessity but the machine kept saying there was a 99% probability of their tools being used to kill? Should politicians and leaders be held accountable if they do things that lead to tragedy but they didn't consult the machines? Should they have consulted the machines and should they be held guilty for the full consequences of their actions since the machines could have predicted the consequences?

Please note that these are impractical questions in the secular world

Can we hold Alfred Nobel accountable for inventing dynamite, gelignite, and ballistite? Is it moral to accept Nobel prizes founded by him from that money? Do people who accept Novel peace prize also share responsibility of damages and deaths caused by these explosives?

As for the 1000 year old hammer... If I wanted to kill someone and that hammer was not around, I would have to make do with some stone ....

 

[Infant]

Can we hold Alfred Nobel accountable for inventing dynamite, gelignite, and ballistite? Is it moral to accept Nobel prizes founded by him from that money? Do people who accept Novel peace prize also share responsibility of damages and deaths caused by these explosives?

As for the 1000 year old hammer... If I wanted to kill someone and that hammer was not around, I would have to make do with some stone ....

My thinking is along similar lines

How much of a difference does more precise knowledge make? Especially since one can choose to simply create nothing if no 'safe' alternative is found

 

[Avani]

My thinking is along similar lines

How much of a difference does more precise knowledge make? Especially since one can choose to simply create nothing if no 'safe' alternative is found

Blaming the old hammer or it's forger is meaningless. For a crime to be complete, there has to be a specific intent and the person has to act on that intent. The planning and instrument used to execute are secondary aspect of the crime.

Existence of a hammer cannot be blamed nor it's forger unless you can prove that the crime wouldn't have happened unless that particular hammer existed. Or that forger instigated it by creating it. You must prove that he created it for this specific crime.

 

[Infant]

Blaming the old hammer or it's forger is meaningless. For a crime to be complete, there has to be a specific intent and the person has to act on that intent. The planning and instrument used to execute are secondary aspect of the crime.

Existence of a hammer cannot be blamed nor it's forger unless you can prove that the crime wouldn't have happened unless that particular hammer existed. Or that forger instigated it by creating it. You must prove that he created it for this specific crime.

What do you make of the laws against firing a gun into the air in public?

 

[Avani]

What do you make of the laws against firing a gun into the air in public?

Laws in my country? or yours? Your question is vague. But random firing in to air is still risky. Take it as a part of crowd management and safety precautions.

Some people do have stupid habit of showing off and firing a gun on public occasions here. Like in a wedding or similar occasions of mass gathering and more than once caused a death, ruining the wedding or other such festivities. These attention seeking relatives or guests are annoyance and it's good to have law against it. Especially since people tend to add alcohol consumption in the mix.

 

[Infant]

Laws in my country? or yours? Your question is vague. But random firing in to air is still risky. Take it as a part of crowd management and safety precautions.

Some people do have stupid habit of showing off and firing a gun on public occasions here. Like in a wedding or similar occasions of mass gathering and more than once caused a death, ruining the wedding or other such festivities. These attention seeking relatives or guests are annoyance and it's good to have law against it. Especially since people tend to add alcohol consumption in the mix.

Whichever, just the general idea.

Is it not the same with the hammer. If you are given a system that tells you with near certainty that a crime will be committed with it, is it not like firing a bullet into the air.

If a person shoots a bullet straight into the air, then it comes back down and kills someone, would you hold the gunman guilty?

 

[Avani]

Whichever, just the general idea.

Is it not the same with the hammer. If you are given a system that tells you with near certainty that a crime will be committed with it, is it not like firing a bullet into the air.

If a person shoots a bullet straight into the air, then it comes back down and kills someone, would you hold the gunman guilty?

Say what?

No it's not the same at all. You are comparing forging of hammer to actual shooting using a gun. Former is simply making a multipurpose tool, while later is an irresponsible use of a lethal tool. Forging of hammer can be compared to making guns with license and permissions under the law of the society. But forging a hammer is not the same as using a gun and killing someone.

It would have made more sense if you compared firing a gun in the air to randomly swinging hammer or throwing it around. Then, yes, in such cases, if the bullet or the hammer hits someone and kills them, gunman/hammer thrower is guilty of a homicide. It may fall in category of "homicide not amounting to murder", so that's that.

 

[Infant]

Say what?

No it's not the same at all. You are comparing forging of hammer to actual shooting using a gun. Former is simply making a multipurpose tool, while later is an irresponsible use of a lethal tool. Forging of hammer can be compared to making guns with license and permissions under the law of the society. But forging a hammer is not the same as using a gun and killing someone.

It would have made more sense if you compared firing a gun in the air to randomly swinging hammer or throwing it around. Then, yes, in such cases, if the bullet or the hammer hits someone and kills them, gunman/hammer thrower is guilty of a homicide. It may fall in category of "homicide not amounting to murder", so that's that.

Okay

Is the idea of responsibility absolutely limited when it comes to mere forgery? Enough to make my example impractical?

 

[Avani]

Okay

Is the idea of responsibility absolutely limited when it comes to mere forgery? Enough to make my example impractical?

Yes. Excuse me for being blunt but the example is just not impractical. It's absurd.

There is simply no legal or moral responsibility that you can pin the guilt on the forger logically, in circumstances described in your OP. He might have made it for making other tools. He may have made it for some soldier to defend his country or as someone's personal weapon. He might have made it to fix his house. Whatever his original intent and purpose, it has no bearing on the crime committed by another person a century later. It's on the person who did the deed.

No sane person sees a hammer or any lethal tool and thinks " someone made it, so I must put it to use and kill someone."
I am not sure where you are going with it? Is there some actual context to it?

 

[Infant]

Yes. Excuse me for being blunt but the example is just not impractical. It's absurd.

There is simply no legal or moral responsibility that you can pin the guilt on the forger logically, in circumstances described in your OP. He might have made it for making other tools. He may have made it for some soldier to defend his country or as someone's personal weapon. He might have made it to fix his house. Whatever his original intent and purpose, it has no bearing on the crime committed by another person a century later. It's on the person who did the deed.

No sane person sees a hammer or any lethal tool and thinks " someone made it, so I must put it to use and kill someone."
I am not sure where you are going with it? Is there some actual context to it?

So people have no responsibility relating to probability?

A question on responsibility, it is

 

[Avani]

So people have no responsibility relating to probability?

A question on responsibility, it is

It's a case of bad reasoning to begin with. You presented a very specific scenario and trying to turn in to a very wide generalization and an absolute.

Let's change the variables.

Someone invented a pencil.

You must be registered for see links

ll. Your hammer can be easily replaced with pencil.

You must be registered for see links

A similar case in 2005 claimed the life of a Chico State University student, Matthew Carrington, who drank too much water during a fraternity initiation. 2007,

You must be registered for see links

after drinking about two gallons of water as part of a radio station contest.
So should we hold pencil makers, drinking water suppliers and gatorade maker responsible based on probability that some unfortunate idiot will drink too much of it one day and die?

To answer your question, there maybe cases where responsibility relating to probability may hold. But so far you have not put it up for the discussion.

 

[Infant]

It's a case of bad reasoning to begin with. You presented a very specific scenario and trying to turn in to a very wide generalization and an absolute.

Let's change the variables.

Someone invented a pencil.

You must be registered for see links

ll. Your hammer can be easily replaced with pencil.

You must be registered for see links

A similar case in 2005 claimed the life of a Chico State University student, Matthew Carrington, who drank too much water during a fraternity initiation. 2007,

You must be registered for see links

after drinking about two gallons of water as part of a radio station contest.
So should we hold pencil makers, drinking water suppliers and gatorade maker responsible based on probability that some unfortunate idiot will drink too much of it one day and die?

To answer your question, there maybe cases where responsibility relating to probability may hold. But so far you have not put it up for the discussion.

Your last paragraph is what I have in mind

Is a scenario where the crime is practically guranteed to happen not one such case?

Groups are made up of specific individuals, so what applies to one should be considered by the whole, but not as though it applies directly to the whole. Why do you say I tried to make it generic?

 

[Avani]

Your last paragraph is what I have in mind

Is a scenario where the crime is practically guaranteed to happen not one such case?

Groups are made up of specific individuals, so what applies to one should be considered by the whole, but not as though it applies directly to the whole. Why do you say I tried to make it generic?

Last paragraph? Either way, I will address your last two lines first.

The examples I mentioned in there demonstrated other actions that can be somewhat compared to forging the hammer in the case you brought up. But they have little to do with the conclusion you want to reach.
You equated forging a hammer with firing a gun in the air and I meant to point that, they are not equivalent actions. I should have made it clear. Next you proceeded to conclude that " no responsibility on the base of probability". That is certainly not true.

Forging a hammer, or knife is not a guarantee that a crime will happen or someone will get a life threatening injury. These multi purpose tools have improved quality of human life and helped their evolution.

Firing a gun in the air or swinging this hammer or knife in public sphere just because you can, is not a productive action and endangering people around cannot be put in the same category as the forging of a useful tool. This action serves no useful purpose other than gaining attention and jeopardizing safety of people around. Probability of harm is several times higher than benefit of the action. No other value to the action other than personal gratification of an individual. So there is definitely a responsibility on the basis of probability of the harm, here. It's just that it's not applicable in case of the forger who died a century before and had no role in the crime done long after.

 

[Hunty]

No. I think it's also the intent of the items creation and why it was created in the first place. The hammer was developed for crafting purposes while let says, a gun is created for killing and hunting purposes. Whoever uses it for such is to blame.

 

[Infant]

Last paragraph? Either way, I will address your last two lines first.

The examples I mentioned in there demonstrated other actions that can be somewhat compared to forging the hammer in the case you brought up. But they have little to do with the conclusion you want to reach.
You equated forging a hammer with firing a gun in the air and I meant to point that, they are not equivalent actions. I should have made it clear. Next you proceeded to conclude that " no responsibility on the base of probability". That is certainly not true.

Forging a hammer, or knife is not a guarantee that a crime will happen or someone will get a life threatening injury. These multi purpose tools have improved quality of human life and helped their evolution.

Firing a gun in the air or swinging this hammer or knife in public sphere just because you can, is not a productive action and endangering people around cannot be put in the same category as the forging of a useful tool. This action serves no useful purpose other than gaining attention and jeopardizing safety of people around. Probability of harm is several times higher than benefit of the action. No other value to the action other than personal gratification of an individual. So there is definitely a responsibility on the basis of probability of the harm, here. It's just that it's not applicable in case of the forger who died a century before and had no role in the crime done long after.

Agreed, yet again

That's why I created a highly convoluted if-scenario - to explore pure possibility and see what it can mean as it is.

So in this scenario - unrealistic though it may be - does the practical guarantee of crime not overpower the factor of general usefulness of the tool? Do you think that the general usefulness of the hammer and that potential is more important that the near-guarantee of it being used to kill?

No. I think it's also the intent of the items creation and why it was created in the first place. The hammer was developed for crafting purposes while let says, a gun is created for killing and hunting purposes. Whoever uses it for such is to blame.

Of course

In this scenario, the forger knows that his tool will almost-certainly be used to kill, even down to the specific person who will be killed with it. Does that information not interact with his intention to do good and cause a change of decision?