Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar Nut
Where between
"Walt deals meth -> Ted gets hurt" -> Walt (partially) responsible = true
and
"Butterfly flaps wings -> Ted gets hurt" -> Butterfly (partially) responsible = false
do we draw the line?
This is a serious question. If we assume a causal chain that goes all the way from "butterfly flapping" to "Ted getting hurt", we have to draw a line somewhere where we still assign a certain amount of responsibility.
because if a butterfly flaps its wings, you can not draw a direct line to ted getting hurt.
with Walt, if he is a teacher, how does Ted get hurt?
Ted still commits fraud. Skylar assists in that fraud. Then they get caught. Sklyar doesn't have 600,000 lying around to bribe Ted with. Then Ted doesn't have money he could give to the government. If he doesn't have the money to give to the government, then Saul doesn't put his goons on him. If he doesn't sick goons on him, he doesn't run from said goons and smash his face into a table.
Therefore, If Walt was still a teacher, then Ted would never be in a position to be running from the goons that caused him to slip and hit his head.
what part of this logic is difficult to ascertain?
of course Ted's, Skylar's, and Saul's actions contributed to his demise, but without Walt's original decision to start the Meth business, Ted/Saul/Skylar would not have had the chance to commit their actions.
To answer your question, I think you draw the line when it goes from actual causation to a ******ed hypothetical