First Law metaphysics question

[nadia.skylark]

Okay, I have a couple of questions regarding when the First Law of Magic is considered to be broken that I'd like people's opinions on.

First, what happens if you use magic to deal someone an injury that is fatal, but not immediately, and then kill them with mundane methods before they die of it? For example, what if you blast someone with enough fire that they will certainly die of their burns in a few minutes/few hours/day, but then before they do so you put a bullet through their head?

Second, what happens if you use magic to deal someone an injury that has the potential to be fatal if the person isn't careful, but if they are they'll live, and then they do something careless and die of it? For example, what if you give someone a bad cut on the leg, but if they stay still and try to stop the bleeding they'll be fine, and then instead they keep chasing after you and die of blood loss?

[Bad Alias]

I'd say both of those are not violations of the first law because there is a non-magical intervening act that prevents, in the first example, and causes, in the second example, the death from injuries by magical means.

I'm near 100% confident in the first example, but much less so in the second.

I base this on Jim's discussions of first law violations being more about result than intent and his focus on free will and choice. In both cases the death is the result not of magical injuries, but of choices about those injuries. Also, almost every time a wizard kills someone it is very likely to be very similar to situation one, i.e. the only reason the wizard was able to kill the person is because they used magic to make the person vulnerable in the first place, i.e., the death is "caused" by magic.

[kbrizzle]

I agree with @Bad Alias - JB makes it clear that intent & believing something ought to happen is pretty important. In 2 examples you bring up, murder is not the intention, however I wouldn’t be surprised if #1 puts a stain on your soul.

[KurtinStGeorge]

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.

The second case is entirely on the victim.  First, they are chasing you.  That likely means you are afraid for your own life and are just trying to get away.  That might be enough for a self-defense argument.  More important from the Council's perspective is you also didn't use enough magical force to kill your opponent, just enough force to get away.  It was their stubbornness and stupidity which killed them. 

[morriswalters]

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.

[KurtinStGeorge]

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.

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]

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. 

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.

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.

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]

I agree with @Bad Alias - JB makes it clear that intent & believing something ought to happen is pretty important.

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.

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.

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.

[Bad Alias]

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

The proper translation of the first law into English would depend on common law legal definitions, which is what I was using. Though I do believe the "human being" part of the definition is a "recent" American change from the original "person."

I don't think the first law is violated when there is an intervening sufficient cause of death. That is, a cause that would have resulted in death even if magic hadn't been involved. For example, if in the first example, the bullet through the head would have killed the person regardless of whether or not they had been burned.

I do think that the only thing intent effects is the amount of stain.

I do think some amount of intervening causes, even if they have nothing to do with choice, removes the taint. Think Butterfly Effect.

(click to show/hide)

The term, closely associated with the work of Edward Lorenz, is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Harry uses magic. That use effects weather causing a death halfway around the world. First Law violation? I doubt it. My question is how much metaphysical distance between cause and effect is needed. I have no idea.

[g33k]

There's also this:  the White Council's "Laws" seem largely designed to mirror some sort of "moral truth" and "Natural Law" in the Dresdenverse.

The "stain" of breaking the laws, the moral corruption, is there whether or not the Council knows or suspects the sorceror has done so.  Similarly, they may kill someone for lawbreaking, and be mistaken about them (though IIRC there's strong evidence of at least a soulgaze before an execution).

FWIW.
 

[exartiem]

That is what the soul gaze, which I mentioned, is for.

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.

Even if you used a gun to finish off someone you 99% killed with magic, if you took satisfaction or  pleasure from the act then it likely left that stain.  The wardens would not let you lawyer your way out.  The accused doesn't get a court appointed attorney. 

If Western legal precedent applies, then consider this:  Attempted Murder carries the same penalty as Murder because the intent was there.  If you try to murder someone by shooting them in the head and they stagger backwards into traffic and get hit by a truck, you still get life in prison.

[Bad Alias]

[1.] Attempted Murder carries the same penalty as Murder because the intent was there.  [2.] If you try to murder someone by shooting them in the head and they stagger backwards into traffic and get hit by a truck, you still get [the same sentence].

1. No, unless your talking about way back when every felony was punishable by death.

2. Yes because you had intent to kill and kill you did. Also felony murder because of the attempted murder.

(Of course, I'm only speaking to the common law tradition because I know very little about the civil law system. "Western legal precedent" would encompass both).

[Just Al]

Reading this thread made me think about Scalzi's novella "The Dispatcher". If you haven't read it, the main conceit is that you CAN'T kill someone. If you shoot someone in the head, they will wake up in their bed the next morning as if nothing happened.

The only way to actually get kill someone is to put them in a place where they will slowly die of hunger or thirst. That way when they come back they will be on the verge of dying anyway.

This sort of arrangement would not technically violate the use of magic clause, as in the example of walling some one up using magic. You didn't kill them, thirst did. You just made sure they couldn't get out.