The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

First Law metaphysics question

<< < (2/3) > >>

KurtinStGeorge:

--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 01, 2019, 07:51:59 PM ---The first example has been used as a plot device in murder mysteries.  So based on that, my thought is the bullet is the cause of death. Not magic.  If he bleeds to death, the cause of death is the attack, not the victims failure to take care of it. Had you not attacked there wouldn't have been any bleeding in the first place.  Both would probably taint you even if the wardens didn't behead you.

--- End quote ---

If you are being pursued by someone intending to harm you, you are not attacking them, you are defending yourself.  Your argument would have more merit if the pursuer is simply performing surveillance and has no (immediate) hostile intent. 

morriswalters:

--- Quote from: KurtinStGeorge on June 02, 2019, 07:31:59 AM ---If you are being pursued by someone intending to harm you, you are not attacking them, you are defending yourself.  Your argument would have more merit if the pursuer is simply performing surveillance and has no (immediate) hostile intent. 

--- End quote ---
I wasn't talking about the reason why the killing occurred.  It's a simple statement of fact.  If you cut someones throat and they bleed out then you killed them.  That they didn't stop the bleeding to save themselves doesn't change that.
--- Quote from: Storm Front ---I killed him instead, mostly by luck—but he was just as dead, and I'd done it with sorcery. I broke the First Law of Magic: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
--- End quote ---
It says killed not murdered, and seems to be fairly straightforward.  It tainted Harry even though it was in self defense.

exartiem:
The purpose of the Law of Magic are to prevent wizards from becoming warlocks, so intent really does play a big part.  In the first example, was the intent to murder?  Or were you defending yourself?  (Interesting that you used fire as an example because that is how Harry killed Justin, and he was spared because it was in self defense and Harry had no other weapon)  Or did you accidently wound and you were putting the person out of their misery with the bullet?  Intent.

The second example sound more like you were being pursued and gave the life-threatening injury in oder to trigger the attacker's sense of self preservation, allowing you to escape.  But if their drive to come after you overrides the care for their own life, then their death was obviously self-defense.

My point is, not matter the physical outcome, the warden is going to soul gaze you to learn your intent and whether the act left a stain of black magic on you and judge you based on that.

Bad Alias:

--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 01, 2019, 04:38:15 AM ---I agree with @Bad Alias - JB makes it clear that intent & believing something ought to happen is pretty important.

--- End quote ---
JB also makes clear, when discussing the first law, that intent, while important, is less important than consequences.

I have trouble with the first law because I can't help wanting to apply the legal concept of proximate cause to the magical act. For example, if a wizard scratches someone using magic, then the scratch becomes infected, and the someone dies, that is clearly not a proximate cause of their death. I'm not sure it isn't a violation of the laws of magic because there is no intervening choice that causes/allows the death.


--- Quote from: KurtinStGeorge on June 01, 2019, 05:19:35 PM ---If you blast someone with enough fire to kill them, that means you believed in what you were doing enough to use that level of magical mayhem.  I think it doesn't matter that you finished them off with a mundane weapon.  Barring self-defense, because the other person was trying to kill you first, you committed a First Law violation when you hit that person with a lethal level of magic because it was clearly your intent to kill them.

--- End quote ---

I don't think intent is that important to JB. Additionally, the intent might have been to injure them enough to incapacitate but not kill. Then to finish them off through mundane means.

Isn't the defense when someone is using black magic against you? I thought I read that somewhere, but in chapter 7 of Storm Front it's just stated as self defense and defense of the defenseless, which is probably just others.

Everyone seems focused on intent, but the law says not to kill. We have different words for different kinds of killing. Murder, manslaughter, non-culpable homicide. The difference between all of these is intent. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought, express or implied. I'll spoiler an explanation below. Manslaughter is the criminally negligent killing of another human being. An accident caused by inexcusable behavior. Non-culpable homicide is a catch all for any form of lawful killings (self defense, war, executions, accidents, etc.). In the DF, self defense isn't a legal defense; it is a mitigation. That's why he's given the Doom instead of complete freedom. He violated the First Law, but he got a reduced sentence. JB has made clear that even manslaughter with magic, and possibly all other homicides with magic, are First Law violations. Intent is the less important part. It is my understanding that a less culpable intent leads to less black magic taint.

Another point is that the intent that matters is the intent to kill with magic. The intent that magic kills the victim. In the first example, that may not be the intent. The intent could be that the results are a death by mundane means. The first example is not a violation because the practitioner did not kill with magic. They killed with mundane means, not magic. Had the practitioner let the victim die of his wounds, that would have been a violation regardless of intent.

(click to show/hide)There are four ways to meet the intent element, malice aforethought, for murder.
1. Intent to cause death.
2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
3. Depraved heart (recklessness far beyond that which is required for manslaughter, such as burning a house down that you know people are in because you love fire so much).
4. Felony murder (when someone dies as a result of the commission of a felony).

exartiem:
I doubt that the White Council depends on American or Western legal system definitions to enforce their laws of magic.

Full intent creates the stain, but even the act of killing without intent creates a spiritual wound that would make you more susceptible to the temptation in the future.  That is why they only give reduced sentences, not acquittals.  And why Harry had to have a sponsor or they would have just executed him anyway.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page