Did loudness contribute to the person's death?

Question

Someone is shot and killed; were there no loudness to the gunshot, the event would have been different.

http://www.stanford.edu/~lmaguire/phil186/sosa-kim.htm

Were there no loudness, the event would have been different. So while we know A precedes B, and part of A is the loudness of the gun, the dew point, and whatever else, anything that's not A cannot also be said to effect a B. So loudness is causally efficacious.

Everything else is modal conjecture. How is the victim's identity not also constituitive of the cause?

ALL we know is A--> B
if you imagine -A-->B, fine, but there's no necessity. To claim that it is irrelevant, means you have to provide a possible world where -A-->B, but you can't. It will always be -A-->-B, whatever test you provide.

Answer 1

A butterfly landing on a flower in Japan also has an effect on the Hurricane approaching the Caribbean. Even though the event is changed, different without loudness or dust on the gun, the shooter still has a lifeless body to deal with. The loudness is as irrelevant as the flower in Japan.

Answer 2

To me this is basically asking "If bullet A killed Joe, versus Bullet B, is this a different death?".

The noise is completely irrelevant. It's simply a way to distinguish one bullet from another. Any given gunshot is going to be unique in it's penetration, angle, etc... whether it's loud or not.

Answer 3

If a gunshot happens and there's no loudness to it it doesn't mater because the person dies when the bullet hits him.

Answer 4

I assume you think that a bullet travels faster than sound. It doesn't . Therefore he would have been dead after the sound. It wouldn't matter then if he had heard it or not. He still would be dead.

Answer 5

yes - death by sound

Answer 6

You failed to take the pebble, grasshopper.

Answer 7

no man only die in depression