Three Days of Happiness reflects on whether the value of life can be measured by external standards, through three perspectives: money, the understanding of others, and self-identity. Ultimately, only what we define for ourselves—and what genuinely brings us happiness—constitutes the true meaning of life.

This episode explains how we use “distance” between possible worlds to judge counterfactuals like “If I hadn’t shot, he wouldn’t have died,” and why we usually choose worlds most similar to ours. It then introduces David Lewis’s “small miracle” idea to explain how one key event can differ while laws of nature stay effectively the same.

Returning to causation in the natural world, we use counterfactual conditionals to analyze “if not A, then no B.”

The Imputable Cause Theory refines how law determines responsibility beyond mere causation. Unlike adequate causation, it asks whether someone created a legally prohibited risk and whether that risk actually caused the harm. Through examples like childbirth and traffic accidents, we know that the law focuses not just on causal links but on the social and legal purpose behind responsibility — distinguishing natural causation from moral and legal judgment.

The purpose of determining causation in law is to identify responsibility. If we rely solely on counterfactual conditionals to establish a “conditional causal relationship,” we risk including overly remote or accidental factors within the scope of liability.

In philosophy, we can use what’s called a “counterfactual conditional” to judge causation: If A didn’t happen, then B wouldn’t happen either. This helps us tell the difference between mere correlation and real causation.

When we face the most extreme acts of violence in society, we often hope to use the death penalty as a way to end evil. But does such punishment truly deliver justice? Are we relying too heavily on a simplified narrative—reducing human nature to black-and-white labels so we can quickly decide who “deserves sympathy” and who “deserves scorn”? When we support a form of punishment, are we also prepared to bear the social and moral responsibilities it represents?

The death penalty is an extreme form of punishment that demands an individual bear 100% responsibility for their actions. Yet in reality, our behaviors are often shaped by societal frameworks and the expectations of others, making it difficult to claim they arise purely from free will.

Three Main Arguments Against the Death Penalty:

At “Around the Corner,” I believe that if we take just one more step forward, truth or new knowledge lies waiting at the corner.