Murder or Suicide?

[GrandMasterMe]

Now, forgive me if this has been asked before, but my google searches have yielded no results and I was wondering about the take of other people for my question. My question is, would it be considered murder or suicide if someone, person A ,were to meet him or herself, person B, and either person A or B killed the other. It is important to realize, for the purpose of this discussion, that neither person A nor B are clones. They are in fact the same being whether it's due to temporal displacement or something else that I can't think up at this time. As I said I would like to know whether you consider this murder or suicide and any logic you used to reach this conclusion.

[Alteran]

Well, it's hard to say, especially since this situation is (as far as we know) not possible. It really depends on the mechanics of the interactions. Can person A affect person B's actions? Do they function entirely independently? If so, how can it be said that they are the same person? If they function independently, then murder. If not, then it depends on how much control they have, what kind of control it is.

Just what I think, of course.

[Rutskarn]

Let's assume A killed B. Did Person B wish to be killed?

If so, then it was suicide.

If not, then it was murder.

[Overlord Nicy]

Murder. Suicide is taking one's own life. Even though technically, that person is you, it's not YOU, as in, the one holding the gun.

[theMycon]

In the temporal displacement circumstance, it seems pretty clear.

If "Present-me" kills "future-me", it's murder- for a litany of reasons, chief of which being "that doesn't actually kill present-me" and "as far as I know, future-me could be an entirely different person."

If "future me" kills "present me", it's suicide, since future-me probably stops existing.

[Tuataralad]

According to good ol' reliable Wikipedia, murder is defined as


the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)

Murder is different from homicide because of the "intent" clause; that is, murder cannot be accidental and there is a reason for your committing it. This essentially means that it is murder to kill yourself from another time period if:

1. You do so in an illegal manner (i.e. you do not just carry out a death sentence or something...not sure why you would want to do that on yourself anyway)

2. You intend to kill the other version of yourself, and it is in no way accidental (i.e. you have to make an actual effort to kill them, as opposed to just letting them die from another cause)

In general, I would say that, assuming it fulfills these circumstances, it counts as murder, and not suicide. I draw this conclusion mainly because of the "killing of another human being" clause from the definition. Although the person who you kill would be identical to you physically and in every conceivable way, from your point of view, it is still a different person than yourself. In other words, the you who does the killing and is not the victim does not die as an end result, therefore it cannot be suicide.

[Verruckt]

In my book, murder. My thinking is that the person that you are now is a different person then you were five minutes ago and you will be a different person five minute in the future. This is true both physically and mentally. It could be at most assisted suicide (you-5-minutes-ago sees what he's become five minutes in the future and asks his future self to kill him so that he will never become that being (which would do wonders I'm sure for you-5 minutes-from-now's feelings)) But it would never be "killing yourself".

Of course if I carry that forther one could never really kill themself, only themselves, because the one who does the killing wouldn't be the one who does the dying unless there were some truly instantaneous method of self killing.

Now I'm confused by the implications of my point...

Also the above with clones is murder, and that other famous clone question is sex, not self-gratification.


According to good ol' reliable Wikipedia, murder is defined as



Murder is different from homicide because of the "intent" clause; that is, murder cannot be accidental and there is a reason for your committing it. This essentially means that it is murder to kill yourself from another time period if:

1. You do so in an illegal manner (i.e. you do not just carry out a death sentence or something...not sure why you would want to do that on yourself anyway)

2. You intend to kill the other version of yourself, and it is in no way accidental (i.e. you have to make an actual effort to kill them, as opposed to just letting them die from another cause)

In general, I would say that, assuming it fulfills these circumstances, it counts as murder, and not suicide. I draw this conclusion mainly because of the "killing of another human being" clause from the definition. Although the person who you kill would be identical to you physically and in every conceivable way, from your point of view, it is still a different person than yourself. In other words, the you who does the killing and is not the victim does not die as an end result, therefore it cannot be suicide.

This brings up a needed point of clarification, are we talking about "murder" and "suicide" as they are defined legally, and if so in whose laws? Or, are we using "murder" and "suicide" to mean "killing someone else" and "killing yourself" (which if what I said above bears out might not even be possible)?

[Coidzor]

Only suicide if the killer also ceases to exist through whatever linked them together, else it would be murder since the only way they could truly be the same would be if they were controlled by the same mind ruling over two bodies but still a single, unified consciousness.

And that's my knee-jerk reaction to the question I think that you're asking.

Killing "you" from an alternate timeline is still killing another being, even if you were the same person up until 12 seconds ago when "he" decided he'd make himself a mug of tea before microwaving a muffin whereas "you" decided to try out your transdimensional gizmo-thinger-macguffin in order to seek the closest other "you" out to see if it's incest or masturbation or die trying.

That's with slightly more thought put into it, maybe about 15 seconds' consideration plus the time it took to type it up.

[Assassin89]

To paraphrase a popular game by Valve, "That was paradox assisted homicide."

The biggest question here is whether Person A ceases to exist after killing Person B.

[GrandMasterMe]

Thank you for all the good input, but for some points of clarification. Take Murder and Suicide as killing another and killing yourself, once you get into the legalitys of it things could get more sticky. Case in point is murder abortion?(do not respond to that point in any way please) As far as person A ceasing to exist when person B gets killed, no they will continue to exist through whatever paradox managed to put them together. My line of thinking, though, is that it could be suicide, in that you are killing yourself, but it could be murder because it is killing another independent being.

I'm sorry if I didn't clarify before but person A and B are identical in every way imaginable and are in fact the same person. I used temporal displacement because that is the closest way I could imagine said event coming to pass.

[TigerHunter]

They're separate consciouses. Ergo, murder.

And if you don't want people responding to your abortion point, don't put it in there. (I don't see how it relates to this discussion anyway.)

[charl]

The way I see it the line between yourself and someone else goes where your sentience ends and another sentience begins. Since person A is definitely not the same sentience as person B, it's therefore murder.

This is sort of the old teleportation conundrum. If teleportation works by taking a person apart and transporting each individual particle to another place, then effectively every time you step into a teleporter you are killing yourself, just to have an identical copy reappear somewhere else, recycled from your parts. It would for all practical intents be the same person that emerges, but the "continuity" of the persons sentient awareness would be broken, meaning it is not "really" you. I hope this makes sense.

In short: it's murder because while person A and B are identical in all ways, they are not the same being.

EDIT: Ninja'd, sort of.

[GoC]

If they are identical copies then I'd say it isn't murder. As long as person B has had insufficient time to become distinguishable from person A that it's merely killing off an extra body.


My thinking is that the person that you are now is a different person then you were five minutes ago and you will be a different person five minute in the future.
By that logic every time someone changes your mind they've commited murder.

I've put the reason that lives and conciousness is valuable is that it's unique and irreplacable. Make it replacable and it's no longer murder (though it could still be other things).

[GrandMasterMe]

And if you don't want people responding to your abortion point, don't put it in there. (I don't see how it relates to this discussion anyway.)

The point of including the question, "is abortion murder" helps to illuistrate why I do not desire the use of the legal system in any arguments because the legal system is a.) constantly changing and b.) for the sake of the thread not being completely derailed over legal definitions or arguments over what is murder. While I may not have used the question in the most ideal way I was simply reminding my fellow playgrounders of the rules regarding politics on these boards.

[Mewtarthio]

If the future self kills the past self, it's definitely murder at best. It could also be murder/suicide if the future self ceases to exist and unimaginably horrific mass murder if he causes a temporal paradox by doing so.

If the past self kills the future self, it's probably still murder. However, if the future is unchangeable, it's likely an assisted suicide. The future self would have known that he would die by being there; therefore, his presence there might indicate a desire to die, especially if the past self was considering traveling back in time so that he could get killed by his past self. If the past self knew who he was killing, it would be considered a suicide on his part, possibly even an oddly delayed suicide (eg "I don't want to kill myself now, but I know that I will in the future, so I might as well make it easy on myself by setting things up so that I will die when I want to").

Of course, if the future can't be changed, it's irrelevant. The past self is already slated to receive justice, since he will invariably die at the past past self's hands. All that matters is whether or not he's a threat to society, and that's a cold, hard fact that cares not for strange philosophical questions.


Also the above with clones is murder, and that other famous clone question is sex, not self-gratification.

Strictly speaking, assuming we're using time duplicates as in the OP, it could well be self-gratification. This assumes that you've set up a stable time loop solely in order to have sex with yourself. In that case, it is essentially consequence-free sex-on-demand in which you are the only one to derive pleasure from the experience (the future you doesn't count, because he's just you doing the exact same thing at a later, unspecified date).

Sort of like having sex with a perfectly realistic VR simulacrum.

EDIT: By the way, you might want to clarify the title a bit. When I first saw this thread, I thought it would be asking for advice. :smalltongue:

[Telonius]

It can't be suicide, even if person A and person B are "the same person." If that person is alive in any form after the action, that person was not killed, therefore no suicide. It would instead be a rather extreme form of self-mutilation.

The question is then whether or not A and B are really "the same person." I would say no. A person's cells are constantly dividing, matter and energy are interacting with them in unique ways, and each division carries the slight but inevitable chance of changing a person's epigenetic structure. This is why even identical twins gradually become distinct from each other, and why cloned animals are not totally 100% matching their parents. (As demonstrated by "CC" the cloned cat, whose fur color pattern was different from her mother's). The only way you could get a 100% duplicate of a person is for that duplicate to be existing in exactly the same time and place as the original, interacting with exactly the same matter and energy in exactly the same way.

[Felixaar]

It's all semantics, isn't it? Honestly, this is a case the deserves to have a new word created for it. I'm suggesting Vicicide.

[Berserk Monk]

Murder:

Suicide is ending your own life, i.e., your consciousness, mind, or whatever is a better word for thought process. You're ending the life (consciousness) of another being (even though said entity is you in essence). You still exist and think even though you've killed another version of yourself.

You thinking too literal for it to be suicide and such thinking is best left for internet webcomics whose jokes are most based of pop culture jokes. Case and point. (http://lfgcomic.com/page/150)

[Ichneumon]

I would say that it is very much possible and likely that national laws would view it as suicide, if they would recognise the fact that these two people are really the same person. Morally though, I would see it as murder, when you kill yourself against your will.

[kpenguin]

Being in a different position in space (if not time) makes you nonidentical to your other self, so therefore its murder.

[Athaniar]

It's only suicide if the person who uses the weapon is also the person who dies. While both versions of "you" are basically the same, you would both be independent individuals.

[Graymayre]

I'll say it's murder if past me goes to kill present me, but it's impossible for present me to kill past me.

How would I go back to kill myself in the past if I live long enough to get to the present to go back and kill myself? :smallconfused:

I'm sure some unlikely odds would occur then, and my past self would kill my present self during the attempted murder.

[ScIaDrd]

personaly I would say that this realy murder because the you are killing another person which exists in a different psycical space and ist is so to speak a diiferent piece of matter, anther physicak object wich is consious therfore it is murder. But I dont know how wolud be this sitatution wieved by a juducial system or a court. I would say that the person woud be charged for murder because he killed another sentient being. What do you think?

[Thajocoth]

Murder.

If I somehow went 15 minutes back in time and killed my past self, I would not be killing my current self, so it is not suicide. It's murder.

[valadil]

Does person A realize that he is person B at the time of the incident? If not, it's definitely murder.

[GrandMasterMe]

Does person A realize that he is person B at the time of the incident? If not, it's definitely murder.
Yes, they both realize who the other is.
One other thing I would like to mention is several people have said how it's murder because the person who dies doesn't want to be killed, I think it should be pointed out how, since they are the same person an argument can be made that by attempting to kill each other they both desire to die. Although I say that, it does not necicarily count as suicide.

[GoC]

To expand on my previous post:
It all depends on what you think make life valuable.
Numerous hypotheticals have led my to say that life is valuable because of it's uniqueness and irreplacability.
It's also led me to conclude that time travel renders morality completely obselete.:smallbiggrin:

[Supagoof]

The problem is they are never the same person. They become different/are different the second they differentiate paths.

Like if we took person A and cloned them to create person B.

So now you have 2 bodies living in a stasis tubes. They are the same.

But as soon as 1 person leaves the tube, they become different. Person A walks out the door sees things different from when person B walks out the door. Since they can't occupy the same space at the same time, they can't see the things the same way. It'll be slightly different for the both of them.

So when it gets to the killing portion - both have had different experiences that led up to that point. Different experiences (whether it be the killing happened as soon as they left the stasis tubs and 1 turned left, the other right, and they started by instantly killing the other) means a different person.

Different people = murder, not suicide.

Even with the time travel, the person from the future is a different person then the one in the past. (Specifically because he traveled through time). He commits murder, a bi-product of which would be his own death, but it would still be murder.

And if you went with a mirrored opposite approach to remove the different experience thing, then you'd have one commiting "murder" while the other commits "redrum". :smallamused:

[GoC]

So when it gets to the killing portion - both have had different experiences that led up to that point. Different experiences (whether it be the killing happened as soon as they left the stasis tubs and 1 turned left, the other right, and they started by instantly killing the other) means a different person.

What of the objection that this means that changing someone's mind means you've commited murder and created a new person?
Does the fact that you've created new life balance out the murder?

[Supagoof]

What of the objection that this means that changing someone's mind means you've commited murder and created a new person?
Does the fact that you've created new life balance out the murder?
:smallbiggrin: Nope.

Does the worlds ever growing population mean that murders are accepted just to maintain balance? Last I checked the formula of [New Life]>[Death] = [Murder OK] doesn't work in a court system. :smalltongue:

[GoC]

:smallbiggrin: Nope.

Does the worlds ever growing population mean that murders are accepted just to maintain balance? Last I checked the formula of [New Life]>[Death] = [Murder OK] doesn't work in a court system. :smalltongue:

Then how do you counter the objection:


So when it gets to the killing portion - both have had different experiences that led up to that point. Different experiences (whether it be the killing happened as soon as they left the stasis tubs and 1 turned left, the other right, and they started by instantly killing the other) means a different person.

What of the objection that this means that changing someone's mind means you've commited murder and created a new person?

[Supagoof]

If they are identical copies then I'd say it isn't murder. As long as person B has had insufficient time to become distinguishable from person A that it's merely killing off an extra body.


By that logic every time someone changes your mind they've commited murder.

I've put the reason that lives and conciousness is valuable is that it's unique and irreplacable. Make it replacable and it's no longer murder (though it could still be other things).
You mean this objection? It isn't so much an objection as it is a generalization to rationlize it as suicide. :smallwink:

The two people become seperate as soon as they have their first thought. Their no way they are the same being, so it's one autonomous seperate being who is killing another autonomous seperate being. Murder.

And also for your second point, they become unique from the moment they don't occupy the same consciousness, so that makes it murder as they are no longer "irreplacable". Different thoughts - different person. Take the body factor out of it to bring it down to the simple truth.

An no - changing someones mind is not murder, as changing their mind is not a loss of consciousness. It is simply a different path.

Now if they share a consciousness, like say they were Borg from Star-Trek or something (and every other thing being equal), then one killing the other would be similar to the left hand cutting off the right, as it doesn't kill the being as a whole. :smallamused:

[GoC]

It is a loss of consciousness.
One conciousness is disappearing (mind unchange) and another is appearing in it's place (mind changed).

[Supagoof]

Well then the question is does the new conscious know anything from the old conscious? Is there residual carryover. Because that in fact would not be the killing of a being, but the changing of the being.

If there is no carryover, then the old conscious would be dead or killed if forced into nothingness unwillingly. :smallamused:

[GoC]

Well then the question is does the new conscious know anything from the old conscious? Is there residual carryover. Because that in fact would not be the killing of a being, but the changing of the being.

If there is no carryover, then the old conscious would be dead or killed if forced into nothingness unwillingly. :smallamused:

There certainly is some conciousness carryover in both cases.
In the case of killing a copy of yourself from 15 seconds in the future the carryover is almost complete. Same with changing your mind or forgetting something. In fact I'd say the carryover is more complete with the copying case than with forgetting something!

[Randel]

My take on it:

If Old Bob kills Young Bob and dies due to paradox, then Old Bob just committed Murder Suicide. A simultaneous act of murder and suicide which are both part of the same crime.

If Old Bob kills Young Bob and does not die from paradox, then Old Bob committed murder and should go to jail to be violated repeatedly by monstrous inmates.

If Old Bob kills Young Bob and dies due to paradox... then paradoxilay ceases to exist at the point that he killed Young Bob thereby causing Young Bob to retroactivly come back to life and reality to alter itself so that Old Bob didn't kill Young Bob... then the new Old Bob didn't kill Young Bob and should be allowed to go about his business. Though the Time Police might want to check up on things to make sure the act didn't accidentally bring Hitler back to life... in which case the 'old' Old Bob who was erased from time was a jerk, although nobody would remember he existed anymore.

If Young Bob kills Old Bob then he is a murderer and should go to jail to be violated repeatedly by monstrous inmates until his sentence is carried out... at which point he'll probably get killed by his past self. Young Bob is an idiot and Old Bob is a really unlucky guy who did a stupid thing in the past.

If Old Bob goes back in time to kill Young Bob in retaliation for making the stupid mistake of killing an old guy one day and getting himself locked in jail to be repeatedly violated by monstrous inmates for 50 years which utterly ruined Old Bobs ability to find happiness in life... and then Old Bob gets killed by Young Bob. Then Young Bob was acting in self-defense and probably should not be sent to jail as a result. Young Bob gets to go about his happy life and Old Bob gets ripped out of the space-time continuum by paradox and condemned to a hellish limbo without beginning or end... which may or may not be worse then the 50 years he spent in jail getting violated repeatedly by monstrous inmates. It really sucks to be Old Bob. (Although if Young Bob kills another old man and gets sent to jail to be violated repeatedly by monstrous inmates then the paradox would get fixed and Old Bob would get to enjoy the sweet embrace of death.)


In short: Killing people is bad, and even if it's yourself then just commit suicide like a normal person and leave time-travel out of it. Otherwise its Monstrous Inmate Prison for you!

[Logalmier]

This is a question that has been pondered by everyone:

http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/149

http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/150

Case in point.