RichardKennaway comments on Rationality Quotes September 2014 - Less Wrong

8 Post author: jaime2000 03 September 2014 09:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (379)
Tags: quotes

Comments (379)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 September 2014 11:07:06PM 2 points [-]

The shipowner is pronounced "verily guilty" solely on the basis of his thought processes.

Part of the scenario is that the ship is in fact not seaworthy, and went down on account of it. Part is that the shipowner knew it was not safe and suppressed his doubts. These are the actus reus and the mens rea that are generally required for there to be a crime. These are legal concepts, but I think they can reasonably be applied to ethics as well. Intentions and consequences both matter.

if solely by improbable luck the wreck of the ship did arrive unscathed to its destination, would the shipowner still be guilty?

If the emigrants do not die, he is not guilty of their deaths. He is still morally at fault for sending to sea a ship he knew was unseaworthy. His inaction in reckless disregard for their lives can quite reasonably be judged a crime.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 October 2014 04:38:46PM 0 points [-]

Part of the scenario is that the ship is in fact not seaworthy, and went down on account of it.

That is just not true. The author of the quote certainly knew how to say "the ship was not seaworthy" and "the ship sank because it was not seaworthy". The author said no such things.

Part is that the shipowner knew it was not safe and suppressed his doubts. These are the actus reus and the mens rea that are generally required for there to be a crime.

You are mistaken. Suppressing your own doubts is not actus reus -- you need an action in physical reality. And, legally, there is a LOT of difference between an act and an omission, failing to act.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 01 October 2014 07:49:04PM 2 points [-]

The author of the quote certainly knew how to say "the ship was not seaworthy" and "the ship sank because it was not seaworthy". The author said no such things.

The author said:

He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs...

and more, which you have already read. This is clear enough to me.

Suppressing your own doubts is not actus reus -- you need an action in physical reality.

In this case, an inaction.

And, legally, there is a LOT of difference between an act and an omission, failing to act.

In general there is, but not when the person has a duty to perform an action, knows it is required, knows the consequences of not doing it, and does not. That is the situation presented.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit