0

It seems to challenge the idea of the justice system, but in a very subtle way. Are there other flaws with this reasoning? Is the confusion between the idea of a greater power's justice (law of nature, god, etc) and human justice perhaps?

6
  • oddly, this seems like you're threatening murder? – user46524 Jun 8 '20 at 19:53
  • 1
    Rather trying to find constructive answers to disturbing comments on recent events. GF. – Nicolas B Jun 8 '20 at 20:21
  • that's fine, Nicolas. – user46524 Jun 8 '20 at 20:22
  • What is the reasoning you have in mind? How does the existence of accidents challenge the idea of a justice system? Accidents are a fact of life, and justice system only applies to human actions, not God's or nature's. Even if one believes that deaths from coronavirus are God's punishment for prior sins why is that a challenge to the justice system? – Conifold Jun 8 '20 at 21:37
  • Who exactly is saying that? Perhaps what you are arguing against is the idea that a guy who once broke into a pregnant woman's home and shoved a gun in her stomach as he robbed her, and was later unjustly killed by a bad cop, should not be made a hero. – user4894 Jun 8 '20 at 23:42
3

The logical flaw in justifying someone's accidental death in view of their troubled past is the non-sequitur. It's like saying they deserved to die because penguins live in the Antarctic; there is no logical connection between the two events.

2
  • The problem is that nobody is making that argument. OP is trolling. – user4894 Jun 9 '20 at 0:16
  • didn't know that. – niels nielsen Jun 9 '20 at 6:15
0

Justification always is an appeal to some higher power. There will be a great deal of disagreement as to what those higher powers are in the case you allude to, so I will intentionally not get into them. But the general pattern does fit into the topic of philosophy.

Most systems I know of which assign you responsibility for your actions have some concept of proximal cause, in one way or another, which is the last act of volition of any agent which lead to an outcome, such as one's demise. If another actor acted last, making their response the proximal one, the question becomes whether it was reasonable for you to assume this was an outcome to consider.

A major challenge with thinking like these is that often there are multiple causes, not all of which are proximal. Personally, I drive to work every day. There's a chance I might die because someone plows a 1 ton block of steel and aluminum into me. I accept some responsibility for my choice to get into the driver's seat, but I choose to assign more responsibility to a drunk driver who crashes into me.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.