David Boonin's Analysis Of Two Hit Men

Miles Murphy
Anthony Kelley
Phil 4943
Feb 24, 2023

A Critique of David Boonin’s Analysis Of the Case of the Two Hit Men Contents:
Introduction
The Case of the Two Hit Men Summary
Critique of Boonin’s Trolly Case Argument
Critique of Boonin’s Ticket Preventer Argument
Conclusion

Introduction
In his book on the Non-Identity Problem, David Boonin presents a case involving two hit men to demonstrate the Counterfactual and Temporal accounts of harm in action. Using the case of the two Hit Men, Boonin claims that Hit Man One does not harm you even though he pulls the trigger of the gun that kills you and illustrates this with the trolly case and ticket-preventer to support this claim. In this paper, I will show how Boonin attempts to compare

Two Hit Men Case Summary Let’s take a look at the basics of the case in question. In the case of the two hit men, Boonin describes a man called “Mr. Bad” who hires Hit Man one to shoot and kill you. Since Hit Man one sometimes slacks off at his job, Mr. Bad also hires Hit Man two, who always accomplishes his intended task, to shoot and kill you in the case that Hit Man one fails. Ultimately, Hit Man one succeeds in killing you and Hit Man two does not have to kill you.

Critique of Boonin’s Trolly Case Argument Now, I will illustrate Boonin’s Trolly Case and critique his analysis of it and how it applies to the case of the Two Hit Men. Through the lens of the Temporal Account, according to Boonin, we can clearly deduce that Hitman one harms you when he shoots and kills you, since the state he leaves you in is worse than the state you were in before he shot you. However, according to Boonin, the Counterfactual account brings us to the wrong conclusion as it suggests that Hit Man one’s act of killing you does not make you worse off than you would have been since Hit Man two would have killed you in the case Hit Man One had