What caused the house to burn down? Was it the lighting of the match? Well, yes and no. If the room hadn't been filled with propane, the house wouldn't have burned down. The lighting of the match was a cause, but not the complete cause. Was the cause the house's being filled with propane? Yes and no. If the match wouldn't have been lit the house wouldn't have burned down. The house's being filled with propane was a cause and the match's being lit was a cause. If there is any sense in which the cause was one or the other it will be a subjective sense (for instance, we might say that the propane was the cause because we're interested in which contributory cause was the least regular of the causes).
Here are some of the causes of Eric Garner's death:
(a) the police putting him in a choke-hold such that he couldn't get enough air, (b) his poor fitness, (c) his resisting police arrest, (d) his breaking a law, (e) the fact that the state has many totalitarian laws criminalizing economic activities such as selling loose cigarettes. If any of (a)-(e) wouldn't have been the case, Eric Garner would not have died.
The media and left-wing emphasis ("I can't breath") has been solely focused on (a). Libertarians have focused on (e). Which ought to be emphasized is a matter of political philosophy.
But notice that if Eric Garner had been more concerned with his health, had not broken a law, or had the prudence not to resist arrest, he would still be alive. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Eric Garner would be alive if he been more concerned about his health or complied with the officers. Three of the contributory causes of his death were neglecting his fitness, breaking a law, and resisting arrest.
Does what I say offend you? It shouldn't. Would you tell your kids that they are acting prudently in breaking the law, resisting arrest, and neglecting their fitness? It's foolishness to deny that victims are never and in no way responsible for any of the ills that befall them. You might have little control over what laws are passed and what police do to you; but you do have control over how you live your life and respond to the environment around you.
![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
True that certain circumstances make it EASIER for something like that to happen (out of shape, asthma, etc.) but, that doesn't change the fact that Garner died on that day due as a result of the cop's choke-hold. Not disagreeing with the fact that he was resisting arrest and doing something illegal. That, however, doesn't negate that the cop used excessive force with an illegal hold. All other "causes" of Garner's death that day put together and he still, most likely, lives. The cop's hold is what killed him.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't negate that the cop used excessive force." I didn't deny that the cop used excessive force. I take no stand on whether it was excessive--meaning by excessive force that is too likely to cause death or severe injury when applied on average to be a good means of putting a criminal into submission for a minor offense. To know whether it was excessive in that sense one would have to know just how much pressure was applied, how likely it is that such pressure causes death or severe harm, etc. and I don't know enough about these facts to have a firm judgment on that.
Nor am I denying that there should be no concern for how and when police should use choke-holds. I'm libertarian enough not to want TOO militarized of a police force. (For instance, I don't think Obama giving a lot of military vehicles now not being used by the military to ordinary police is a good idea).
But I don't know what sense there is in saying that the cop's hold is what killed him. Are you saying that it was THE cause? In what sense was it THE cause? It was certainly a cause (as I noted) but, again, if Garner wouldn't have broken the law in the first place he wouldn't have been choked. Why think that the cop's hold is what killed him rather than breaking the law and resisting arrest? Or better--in my mind--why not think that there were several contributing causes which jointly were what killed him?
I did agree that there were contributing causes which made it more likely for Garner to die. But, all those other contributing causes in effect (everything but the choke-hold) he still wouldn't have died (most likely) that day had the force and pressure of the hold not been applied. Should he not have put himself in that situation by breaking the law and resisting? Most definitely. But, I believe the hold was the main cause of death. I think the coroner even ruled the death a homicide.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDelete"But, all those other contributing causes in effect (everything but the choke-hold) he still wouldn't have died (most likely) that day had the force and pressure of the hold not been applied."
But you can say the same thing about factors (b), (c) and (d). He wouldn't have died had he not resisted arrest, etc.
"I think the coroner even ruled the death a homicide."
Yes, the coroner ruled it a homicide. Thus there was a grand jury trial. But the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence for there to be a homicide trial, that is, they did not find evidence that the choking rose to the level of homicide. Was the grand jury or coroner's report correct? To render a judgment I'd have to see the reports. So I don't know if it was the main cause.
"But you can say the same thing about factors (b), (c) and (d). He wouldn't have died had he not resisted arrest, etc."
ReplyDeleteEven if a person at the peak of physical condition were put in that hold, you can't say for a fact that they wouldn't have died.
But, true, being that neither of us were in the grand jury and presented all of the facts we can basically only go with what we are presented, which is the video.
"Even if a person at the peak of physical condition were put in that hold, you can't say for a fact that they wouldn't have died."
ReplyDeleteChoice point. Let (b) then be a possible cause.