At a desert oasis, A and B decide independently to murder C. A poisons C's canteen, and later B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him?
A argues that C never drank the poison. B claims that he only deprived C of poisoned water. They're both right, but still C is dead. Who's guilty?
Now here is the answer that I came up with.
To answer the first question, B killed C. C died of thirst not of poison. Both A and B had malicous intentions but B's actions canceled out A's. I don't buy B's defense that he saved C's life for he didn't know that there was poison in the canteen. Remember that A and B acted independently of eachother.
Ethically, they are both guilty. Both acted on intentions to kill C and both, by themeselves would had been enough to kill C. Both acted on homicidal intentions and I think they should both be found equally guilty. Because it is the action that should be judged not the outcome.
Sound off and let me know what you think!
