thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:@TGD & MISSES_SWEDICK
If someone robbed you, and then shot someone the next day, would you be responsible for the victim's death?
I can only assume that what the someone took from me is what they used to shoot the victim. If so, then yes I'm responsible for the victim's death. I had a choice: not get robbed (and presumably get killed) or get robbed. I chose the latter to save my life, thus the victim's death is at least partially my own fault.
So, not 'having' a choice in that matter means that you are responsible?
I understand the causal connection of this example (your money became the robber's revenue, some of which he invests in criminal tools); however, I view this as separate in determining your responsibility since responsibility entails a moral obligation--and with it the requisite "use rights" (i.e. the ability to exercise one's discretion over their goods). I don't subscribe to a moral philosophy which mandates that one must not contribute toward any means which results in harm--under any circumstance.
There is a difference due to the nature of the exchange. If I pay for someone to kill someone else, then sure I'm responsible for the victim's death. If person X forces me to pay, then he deprives me of my use rights over my money; therefore, I can't be held responsible for a latter decision over which I had no control over (exception: unless one adheres to some moral claim where one must resist such coercion in any circumstances). This exception doesn't hold from my perspective since I adhere to a more practical moral claim: one should fight battles they can win.