Alice and Malvin: a hypothetical.

[scythe]

Let's say Alice works at some job where there is a group refrigerator, with Bob, Charlie, and Mallory. Alice brings lunch to work and stores it in the refrigerator. Unbeknownst to Alice, Mallory steals Alice's lunch out of the refrigerator every day. Obviously, Alice knows that her lunch is being stolen, but doesn't know who is taking it. Alice requests that whoever is taking her lunch stop, but Mallory continues to steal Alice's lunch.

One day Alice puts rat poison in her sandwich. Mallory dies. Is what Alice did wrong?

Personally, I think Alice is very much in the right here.

EDIT: Mallory had a sex change. What will this mean for Obama?

[SlappyMcGee]

Errrm. No. Intent to kill. Success!

It would be like firing a bullet at the head of a neighbor who is bouncing on a noisy trampoline. You were not just firing a bullet off into the sky with no intent to hurt anybody. You recognized your neighbors bouncing trajectory and you capped the mofo.

[otters]

It would be like firing a bullet at the head of a neighbor who is bouncing on a noisy trampoline. You were not just firing a bullet off into the sky with no intent to hurt anybody. You recognized your neighbors bouncing trajectory and you capped the mofo.

...I think that's the exact opposite of what it would be like.

[toasters]

It would be like firing a bullet at the head of a neighbor who is bouncing on a noisy trampoline. You were not just firing a bullet off into the sky with no intent to hurt anybody. You recognized your neighbors bouncing trajectory and you capped the mofo.

...I think that's the exact opposite of what it would be like.

I think it's a fair comparison. The retaliation was totally out of proportion with the crime.

[scythe]

It would be like firing a bullet at the head of a neighbor who is bouncing on a noisy trampoline. You were not just firing a bullet off into the sky with no intent to hurt anybody. You recognized your neighbors bouncing trajectory and you capped the mofo.

...I think that's the exact opposite of what it would be like.

I think it's a fair comparison. The retaliation was totally out of proportion with the crime.

What reason does Mallory have to believe that Alice's food is safe?

[SlappyMcGee]

What reason does the bouncer have to assume that he won't be shot in the mother fucking head?

I think you're looking at two separate things here. There's the crime being committed of stealing the sandwich. Retaliation to this crime is sheer vigilantism. Your secondary argument would therefore, I assume, hinge on the idea that Alice is not trying to kill him, and is ignorant of the fact that he steals her sandwiches. But you already established she knows that he steals the sandwiches.

So, is your argument here for vigilantism? Do you think people should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner? This is childish.

[scythe]

What reason does the bouncer have to assume that he won't be shot in the mother fucking head?

You're making a false analogy. Shooting someone in the head is doing something to them. Your actions involve them explicitly. Putting a sandwich with rat poison in it in the fridge isn't doing something to anyone. I can put a sandwich with rat poison in it into any fridge.

I think you're looking at two separate things here. There's the crime being committed of stealing the sandwich. Retaliation to this crime is sheer vigilantism. Your secondary argument would therefore, I assume, hinge on the idea that Alice is not trying to kill him, and is ignorant of the fact that he steals her sandwiches. But you already established she knows that he steals the sandwiches.

No, my secondary argument is that the sandwich is Alice's personal property. Alice can do anything with her personal property that she so pleases, so long as it doesn't directly harm anybody else.

So, is your argument here for vigilantism? Do you think people should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner? This is childish.

What's childish about personal liberty? I'm not in favor of vigilantism at all. I just don't think that a person needs to be reasonably able to expect that everyone else's food is safe; like, that's not really a right.

More to the point:

Let's say Alice has never had her sandwich stolen, but always puts rat poison in half of it. One day, Mallory steals her sandwich and dies. Is what Alice did/is doing still wrong?

[T3chno]

You killed the guy because he stole your lunch. C'mon.

[SlappyMcGee]

What reason does the bouncer have to assume that he won't be shot in the mother fucking head?

You're making a false analogy. Shooting someone in the head is doing something to them. Your actions involve them explicitly. Putting a sandwich with rat poison in it in the fridge isn't doing something to anyone. I can put a sandwich with rat poison in it into any fridge.

Fucking ridiculous. Once again, if Alice does not know that Mal's going to eat the gorram sandwich, then how is she at fault? She's a dumb bitch, but okay. She genuinely didn't mean kill somebody. But once again, you're trying to employ ignorance where there is none. She knows Mal's going to take the sandwich the same way that I know the motherfucker is going to bounce on the trampoline up into where I'm shooting my handgun.

I think you're looking at two separate things here. There's the crime being committed of stealing the sandwich. Retaliation to this crime is sheer vigilantism. Your secondary argument would therefore, I assume, hinge on the idea that Alice is not trying to kill him, and is ignorant of the fact that he steals her sandwiches. But you already established she knows that he steals the sandwiches.

No, my secondary argument is that the sandwich is Alice's personal property. Alice can do anything with her personal property that she so pleases, so long as it doesn't directly harm anybody else.

Okay, except it did. So, that argument is out of the hypothetical window.

So, is your argument here for vigilantism? Do you think people should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner? This is childish.

What's childish about personal liberty? I'm not in favor of vigilantism at all. I just don't think that a person needs to be reasonably able to expect that everyone else's food is safe; like, that's not really a right.

Right; the expectation that another person's food is safe is stupid. This is why you don't eat other people's food, other than the inherent morality against stealing. This does not, however, justify her actions. It is not her responsibility to make the food edible for Mal; it is her responsibility to not do actions that she knows would result in killing Mal.

More to the point:

Let's say Alice has never had her sandwich stolen, but always puts rat poison in half of it. One day, Mallory steals her sandwich and dies. Is what Alice did/is doing still wrong?

No, nothing she did here was wrong, although it was once again stupid. I would liken this to setting up land mines on your front lawn with a sign saying "Do not step on the lawn." But this isn't the situation at all.

[scythe]

What reason does the bouncer have to assume that he won't be shot in the mother fucking head?

You're making a false analogy. Shooting someone in the head is doing something to them. Your actions involve them explicitly. Putting a sandwich with rat poison in it in the fridge isn't doing something to anyone. I can put a sandwich with rat poison in it into any fridge.

Fucking ridiculous. Once again, if Alice does not know that Mal's going to eat the gorram sandwich, then how is she at fault? She's a dumb bitch, but okay. She genuinely didn't mean kill somebody. But once again, you're trying to employ ignorance where there is none. She knows Mal's going to take the sandwich the same way that I know the motherfucker is going to bounce on the trampoline up into where I'm shooting my handgun.

Who cares if she knows that Mallory is going to take the sandwich? The point is, it's her sandwich. In principle, she can do anything she wants with it short of actively hurting someone. I don't think very highly of Alice for what she does here, but I don't think that putting whatever you wish in your food should be considered illegal.

I think you're looking at two separate things here. There's the crime being committed of stealing the sandwich. Retaliation to this crime is sheer vigilantism. Your secondary argument would therefore, I assume, hinge on the idea that Alice is not trying to kill him, and is ignorant of the fact that he steals her sandwiches. But you already established she knows that he steals the sandwiches.

No, my secondary argument is that the sandwich is Alice's personal property. Alice can do anything with her personal property that she so pleases, so long as it doesn't directly harm anybody else.

Okay, except it did. So, that argument is out of the hypothetical window.

No, no, directly. The keyword is directly. The distinction I'm drawing is that in your situation, someone is currently jumping on the trampoline, whereas in Alice's situation, someone might eat the sandwich in the future.

So, is your argument here for vigilantism? Do you think people should be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner? This is childish.

What's childish about personal liberty? I'm not in favor of vigilantism at all. I just don't think that a person needs to be reasonably able to expect that everyone else's food is safe; like, that's not really a right.

Right; the expectation that another person's food is safe is stupid. This is why you don't eat other people's food, other than the inherent morality against stealing. This does not, however, justify her actions. It is not her responsibility to make the food edible for Mal; it is her responsibility to not do actions that she knows would result in killing Mal.

I think you mean "actions that would result in Mallory dying", and I'd argue that that isn't necessary at all. You haven't killed someone who ate your rat poison; you may have allowed them to die, but you haven't killed them, since you have no responsibility to prevent them from eating your rat poison.
I think the other two things I'd like to ask are "what if Alice clearly marks the sandwich as containing rat poison" and "what if Alice puts laxatives (not rat poison) in the sandwich".

More to the point:

Let's say Alice has never had her sandwich stolen, but always puts rat poison in half of it. One day, Mallory steals her sandwich and dies. Is what Alice did/is doing still wrong?

No, nothing she did here was wrong, although it was once again stupid. I would liken this to setting up land mines on your front lawn with a sign saying "Do not step on the lawn." But this isn't the situation at all.

Okay, so we're on the same page here.

[for the record this is a purely philosophical question and isn't meant to be a segue into any other debate]

[blackson]

I would liken this to setting up land mines on your front lawn with a sign saying "Do not step on the lawn." But this isn't the situation at all.

Do not attempt to use this key on the door to this room

[SlappyMcGee]

What I'm saying is that if her actions will probably lead to Mal dying, and she knows this, and she obviously does or why would she put rat poison in it, then she is definitely at fault in my mind. Not that putting rat poison in your food is wrong, or even a bad idea. Just that she could, at the very least, warn Malvin. Otherwise it's... criminal negligence? Certainly you can't justify -morally- the action if the -expected- consequence is somebody dying.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I agree that such a severe response is extremely inappropriate, but would feel that Alice would be justified doing something non-lethal that identifies Mallory. I wouldn't be opposed to Alice surveilling the sandwich, slathering the sandwich in hot sauce, or encrypting the sandwich such that only she could eat it, but rat poison is too disproportionate a response.
"This 14 year-old script kiddie down the street thought he was so clever when he hacked my MySpace to sneak the word 'poop' into my Interests, but he warn't so clever when I shot him in the fuckin' head! HA!"

[Atilla]

I'm going to rig my door so it explodes and kills everything within ten metres when you press the doorbell, then order pizza. Then, when the pizza guy blows himself up, I'll be all "Dude! Stop being a whiner! The door was my private property, and I have the right to do what I want with it! It wouldn't have killed you if you hadn't gone around pressing other people's doorbells."

[scythe]

or encrypting the sandwich such that only she could eat it

Romaine, Salami, Avocado encryption?

[Lachesis]

All you guys are idiots. Put laxatives in the damn sandwich, and not rat poison for gods sakes!!!

[jinxed_07]

Let's say Alice works at some job where there is a group refrigerator, with Bob, Charlie, and Mallory. Alice brings lunch to work and stores it in the refrigerator. Unbeknownst to Alice, Mallory steals Alice's lunch out of the refrigerator every day. Obviously, Alice knows that her lunch is being stolen, but doesn't know who is taking it. Alice requests that whoever is taking her lunch stop, but Mallory continues to steal Alice's lunch.

One day Alice puts rat poison in her sandwich. Mallory dies. Is what Alice did wrong?

Personally, I think Alice is very much in the right here.

Well, while it is a bit unnecessary to poison your food and get someone killed just to get them to stop, it's ultimately malvin(or mallory's) fault for stealing the food in the first place. Now, if she had announced that she would put rat poison in her sandwich and malvin failed to listen and THEN ate it, then she would be fine..
If I had to prosecute her for the first hypothetical situation, then I would put her on parole rather than jail. It is mallory's fault for his/her own death.

...encrypting the sandwich such that only she could eat it...

If that were possible, then why shouldn't she just give it a password?

[SlappyMcGee]

or encrypting the sandwich such that only she could eat it

Romaine, Salami, Avocado encryption?

Hahahahahahahaha!

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I'm going to rig my door so it explodes and kills everything within ten metres when you press the doorbell, then order pizza. Then, when the pizza guy blows himself up, I'll be all "Dude! Stop being a whiner! The door was my private property, and I have the right to do what I want with it! It wouldn't have killed you if you hadn't gone around pressing other people's doorbells."

Knocking on someone's door is not illegal, so this is not an effective parallel. You'd have to come up with something wackier like, "I'm going to set up these speakers all around my house, and when someone enters my home when I don't want them to, they'll all make a really annoying noise!"
The sandwich is Alice's, and so she can put anything she damned well pleases in it so long as no one is hurt if they don't do something illegal with it. Ideally, Mallory's next of kin should have no case against Alice for the same reason I have no case against you if I break into your home, drink your bleach, and with my dying breath report you for poisoning me, or for the same reason I have no case against you if I take something out of your possession, beat myself into a stupor with it, and later try to have you arrested for assault and battery.
If you want to take a more technical approach to it, Mallory is the new owner of the sandwich once she steals it, and everything she does to herself with it is her own damned fault. The classic exception to this is the Trojan Horse, but Alice not only never offered the sandwich to Mallory, but has announced publicly that it is for her and her alone.

Although, like I said, I think rat poison is too disproportionate. I'd much rather make it a learning experience than such an egregious degree of vengeance. If encrypting the sandwich is impossible, I'd make the sandwich so spicy that it's inedible, pack an extra (normal) sandwich for myself, and sit back to watch the fun.

or encrypting the sandwich such that only she could eat it

Romaine, Salami, Avocado encryption?

I was thinking Portabella-Gouda-Peppercini, but either works.


EDIT:
Actually, how about if Alice puts a virus in a sandwich that installs a rootkit in Mallory? Does eating require administrative privileges?

[capt_weasle]

Alice would effectively be charged with murder. According to Wikipedia, she would need an intent to kill (rat poison), reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (putting rat poison in a sandwich and then sticking it in a fridge where anyone has access to it is pretty stupid. What if it was "Bring your daughter to work day," and one little girl thought it would be funny to steal said sandwich?), and finally intent to commit a dangerous felony (which includes burglary). I suppose you could charge her with manslaughter, but I'm pretty sure that putting poison in a sandwich you know will get stolen implies an intent to kill. I think laxatives would have sufficed.

[chume14]

Hypothetically what if on the one day Alice puts rat poison in the sandwich, Bob also decides to bring in a sandwich and due to his poor vision Bob eats Alice's sandwich by accident? Who is to blame Alice, Mallory or Bob?

What if Mallory's actions where not totally of her own volition? What if she was sleepwalking when she ate the sandwich, she had deep seeded mental issues or the drugs used in her sex-change operation where screwing with her head?

What if Obama ate the sandwich? What if Alice has a split personality disorder and is Mallory?

[jinxed_07]

@ capt weasle
Who knows? Maybe Alice LIKES rat poison on here sandwiches. And who is going to be able to prove that she put the poison in the sandwich if mallory consumes the whole sandwich? I doubt rat poison would instantly kill mallory.

...what if Alice has a split personality disorder and is Mallory?

Well, Alice isn't noted to be bipolar, and mallory has a sex change so there is a problem there...

[capt_weasle]

Yes, because telling the jury in court that you like rat poison in your sandwich will make them instantly declare you innocent.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yes, because telling the jury in court that you like rat poison in your sandwich will make them instantly declare you innocent.

And yet, putting peanut butter at the center of a relatively innocent looking tuna sandwich would be odd, but would Alice be at fault if Maladroit had a peanut allergy and, after stealing and eating it, collapsed dead?

[capt_weasle]

Yes, but rat poison is a little different than peanut butter. I think if he died from the latter then Alice would still possibly be up for a count of unintentional murder.