so like, if a dude is hired to kill someone, and he is also hynotized(he's unaware tho) so that if he were to choose not to kill that someone, hypnosis would kick in and force him to do it. assume he kills the person without making the hypnosis kick in. is he guilt-e? ayyye lmao.
I mean morals will trump hypnotism. You can give a person the thought they are in a certain location or event but not force them do to anything there that would go against their life choices.
deletedover 9 years
There is no way to prove he was hypnotized so he would be found GUILTY you mean, legally. Morally—I suppose it just comes down to whether you think intention means more than results.
I believe choices like not killing would snap someone away from hypnosis.
deletedover 9 years
There is absolutely no way to prove that he was hypnotised/not hypnotised. Any mediocre lawyer would be able to win this dispute for him in a court of law.
I've never heard of this "philosophy" before. I have been enrolled in a philosophy class (in substitution for my English class) for 2 years already, and all I've ever heard was the story of the train and the amount of citizens who are potentially about to die... that may be a better question to discuss about(:
I feel like the point of this is supposed to be that if they were hypnotized to do this they don't have a choice in committing the crime or not, and thus can't be held accountable.
However, that falls through because if they choose to kill the hypnosis doesn't kick in and they are held accountable for the act, if they choose not to kill the hypnosis kicks in and they are not accountable for the act.
That's about as seriously as I can possibly take this.
if he chooses to kill the man, he's guilty because it was his choice if he decides not to but hypnosis kicks in and forces him to, he can't be held accountable because someone forced him to. he intended not to kill the man, but it happened against his will
