<p>Well, it depends on who he’s killing. If he’s killing people like Hitler, he’s morally justified. But if he’s killing mere armed robbers or drunk drivers, he’s not.</p>
<p>“we would have to assume that some physical (or divine) property is responsible for the occurrence.”</p>
<p>You can’t assume that that property was caused by the person writing the name. You can only show that they happen together. Maybe that property is causing the person to write the names before the death. Maybe some third external event causes both that person to write the name in the book, and the death of the person’s who’s name was written to occur. Maybe it’s an insane string of coincidences.</p>
<p>
At this point, you are just perverting the entire hypothetical to an unreasonable extent.</p>
<p>If a) the man believes that he is causing this to happen [given] and b) the rest of society believes that he is causing this to happen [given], then your opinion on whether he is causing it to happen is irrelevant. We can only act on the knowledge available to us.</p>
<p>Qwerty, its a work of fiction. You can assume anything you want as long as the author says its so. In the anime/manga the writing of names in the notebook will kill people, done through the aid of a “death god”.</p>
<p>Ah, it’s all splitting hairs whether he “kills” physically or not. It’s entirely his fault they die at that moment he writes the name and it’s premeditated. It’s not accidental like “wishing”, he maniacally laughs as his pen touches the paper, he searches out names and faces of criminals to kill. He specifically plans the criminals to kill in order to create his society.</p>
<p>How he kills isn’t so much important but if it’s moral for him to kill criminals to create a better society. Sort of like the death penalty debates but more extreme because he’s anonymous to society, almost god-like, and he’s the one deciding who’s to die. He usually chooses criminals in life-time sentences at jail, then he goes a bit more toward molesters and rapists, thieves, and it’s made known that he plans to go all the way to punish those that lie and do smaller crimes with just sickness instead of the dramatic heart attacks. This is someone planning to kill out all sin, he is a bit religious at times, and leave only good. But in order to do so he’s killing himself. He’s aware he won’t go to heaven and considers what he’s doing complete altruism and a sacrifice on his part.</p>
<p>Also, you know that ego thread? Yeah, this guy puts any and all egotistical kids to shame. It takes some one with a very big ego to call themselves the new “god” of a perfect world.</p>
<p>Also don’t even bother with the whole “in court they couldn’t prove it”. The detective against him is planning a private execution for this guy if they catch him. And the detective is finding it based on isolating the area of information revealed by the killings, finding proof (the death note), or the idiots who end up allying with the guy usually screw up (there’s this really dumb girl who ends up getting the same power and falling in love with the original). Also, this detective and the death note guy both have enough genius between them to make Stephen Hawkings’ voice box bust from shame.</p>
<p>“Qwerty, its a work of fiction. You can assume anything you want as long as the author says its so. In the anime/manga the writing of names in the notebook will kill people, done through the aid of a “death god”.”</p>
<p>I assumed what you wrote in the OP, what I know, and nothing more. I have thus far ignored your new claim in the middle of the thread. Obviously if in the hypothetical situation you say the book kills, and man causes the book to kill, then I suppose you can say the man causes the deaths. </p>
<p>“If a) the man believes that he is causing this to happen [given] and b) the rest of society believes that he is causing this to happen [given], then your opinion on whether he is causing it to happen is irrelevant. We can only act on the knowledge available to us.”</p>
<p>So you say you believe that he is killing them, not that you know he is killing them. And if you believe he is killing them but don’t know that he is killing them, you have room for differing opinions.</p>
<p>
What’s the difference? How do you know that shooting someone causes their death? How do you know that it isn’t in fact some sort of bizarre series of coincidences?</p>
<p>No, he’s killing them. I know this, well as much I can know about a fictional character. His writing of names, sometimes followed by a description, is the direct cause of that named persons death. “Whoevers name is written will die” is there somewhere. He’s aware of it, he tests it out, it’s his fault entirely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate ToK class.</p>
<p>^^^You can perform the autopsy… I’ll go through it…</p>
<p>Some medical condition caused the death. Known. Autopsy.
The bullet’s entry caused the medical condition. Known. Autopsy.
The bullet’s entry was caused by the bullet’s movement from it’s initial position to it’s final. Known. Physics I suppose.
The bullet’s movement was caused by the mechanics of the gun. Known. That’s how machines work.
The initialization of the mechanics of the gun were cause by the trigger moving. Known. That’s how machines work.
The movement of the trigger was caused by the man pulling it. Known. That’s how machines work.</p>
<p>I think the real question of this thread is whether an arbitrary person has the right to individually decide the fate of unambiguously bad people.</p>
<p>^Yeah but picking at stuff like I did is much more interesting to me… I like to argue.</p>
<p>As for that, I’m sticking with my post #9.</p>
<p>^I was wondering if you were doing all this just for the sake of arguing, but it wasn’t even on the point, but on a side issue you made.</p>
<p>^I didn’t intend to create the side issue. I thought TCBH did, and then found out he didn’t, but by that time it was already created.</p>
<p>But yeah, I do like to argue. Plus I figure it could be useful offline too.</p>
<p>Pfft, I would never create a side topic :rolleyes:</p>
<p>@QwertyKey:</p>
<p>Everything we do is based on our beliefs about the world. The physics that leads a fired gun to cause a deadly wound is just our best way of describing the world we see around us. This description makes logical sense and is based on scientific experimentation, so the overwhelming majority of people accept it. It is considered a reasonable explanation by society.</p>
<p>In this hypothetical, society likewise considers it a reasonable explanation of natural phenomena to conclude that the action of writing the name leads to the death of a person. The intermediary steps are unnecessary because society accepts that they will occur.</p>
<p>Your logical failure is to assume that performing an autopsy and understanding the mechanics of the gun constitutes truth. It does not. It simply represents the best way society has available to evaluate the cause of death in that scenario, based on conventionally-held beliefs. If it is perceived by society that writing the name causes death, than it is irrelevant whether it in fact does so.</p>
<p>“Your logical failure is to assume that performing an autopsy and understanding the mechanics of the gun constitutes truth. It does not. It simply represents the best way society has available to evaluate the cause of death in that scenario, based on conventionally-held beliefs. If it is perceived by society that writing the name causes death, than it is irrelevant whether it in fact does so.”</p>
<p>You’re correct in that my claim assumes that we know scientific fact which as humanity we say we know, but only really “know” and don’t really know. However, I treat those exact same facts as known in both the hypothetical and real world. I use have to base the knowns of the hypothetical world based on the things which are treated as knowns in the real world. I don’t know how to generate a new set of knowns for the hypothetical world that may not necessarily hold in the real world. If you have, how did you do it, and what are they all?</p>
<p>
Fictional creators have the prerogative to set whatever societal norms they want. Generally, we accept the status quo except in cases where the creator says otherwise, at which point they win without contest. If the creator says that the man and society in general accept that writing a name leads to death, that is a societal expectation in the hypothetical world. It is also one that has been tested and responds similarly in all subsequent tests, which is enough to provide strong scientific support.</p>
<p>“Fictional creators have the prerogative to set whatever societal norms they want. Generally, we accept the status quo except in cases where the creator says otherwise, at which point they win without contest. If the creator says that the man and society in general accept that writing a name leads to death, that is a societal expectation in the hypothetical world. It is also one that has been tested and responds similarly in all subsequent tests, which is enough to provide strong scientific support.”</p>
<p>The creator did not say this “If the creator says that the man and society in general accept that writing a name leads to death,” until post #38. I was basing my assumptions upon the OP only, not subsequent amendments. </p>
<p>As for this “It is also one that has been tested and responds similarly in all subsequent tests, which is enough to provide strong scientific support.” That only provides support for correlation, not causation.</p>
<p>
See the OP:
So, he obviously believes that he can kill people. The mob obviously believes that he can kill people. Since his aim is to make all criminals afraid, we can reasonably conclude that most of society believes that he can kill people.
That conclusion was mostly derived from post #45, where the OP lists a wide enough variety of crimes to allow a tenuous conclusion that the sample is representative of the population as a whole. Since we import the status quo in all cases not specifically prescribed by the creator, we can assume that there is no unknown factor such as a homicidal maniac with a shotgun killing these people instead. In other words, no lurking variables.</p>
<p>But since we’re just sticking with the OP itself, you can drop the point on scientific evidence. It isn’t really important anyway.</p>