Consequences vs Intentions

[BolshyFaker]

If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause bad consequences?

If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause neutral consequences?

If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause good consequences? In this example, am I actually to be praised for the good consequences of my actions (though caused by bad intentions)?

Please illustrate your views with the use of examples such as:

I intend to shoot Terrorist (good intention), but kill Civillian (bad consequence) then I am to be blamed because the end result is still Civillian dead and my intentions are therefore irrelevant.

But please try to keep it neutral rather than discussing any particular country or conflict! Thanks.

[premjan]

Bad consequences merit blame, whether because of evil intent or carelessness (but not if caused by pure accident in which case they cannot be seen as consequences anyway). Bad intentions merit disapproval but not blame. Plans to do something bad merit prevention or incarceration but perhaps not retaliation. Attempts to do something bad merit retaliation at least in proportion to the perceived damage that may have been caused, or a sufficient degree of damage to guarantee stifling of the attempt.

[BolshyFaker]

Bad consequences merit blame, whether because of evil intent or carelessness (but not if caused by pure accident in which case they cannot be seen as consequences anyway).

Fair enough - I'd further justify this by saying that when we take something to be evidence of an evil intent, or a reprehensible carelessness we blame (and punish) so as to attempt to rectify the bad state of mind in the future.

Bad intentions merit disapproval but not blame.

I've no idea how to distinguish disapproval and blame. Disapproval might I suppose be the right reaction in the absence of the bad intentions having any effect - e.g. you tell me you'd love to kill someone and I disapprove.

As soon as that intention has any effect though my disapproval immediately becomes blame since I assume your intentions had causative power in your actions.

Plans to do something bad merit prevention or incarceration but perhaps not retaliation.

Isn't incarceration itself a form of 'retaliation'? At least, if that is synonymous with punishment.

Attempts to do something bad merit retaliation at least in proportion to the perceived damage that may have been caused, or a sufficient degree of damage to guarantee stifling of the attempt.

Not sure I'm with you here - try a thought experiment. I attempt to kill your whole family, but fail. Does this mean that I have merited retaliation in proportion? So you can now try (but must fail perhaps?) to kill my whole family?

Also on this logic, if I try to nuke a whole city, you would be justified in bombing my whole street so as to prevent this. In fact, you would be justified in nuking the whole city so as to stifle the attempt.

[premjan]

Basically suppose you keep on trying to perform (e.g. suicide) bombing then someone who is a target or who represents those who were targets (or maybe just anyone who doesn't want you to succeed) is justified in killing you - if they don't kill you now you might succeed again later.

I guess in proportion is not correct, it ought to be retaliation sufficient to prevent further attempts. There is no point to merely proportionate retaliation as it may elongate the conflict. It is best to take action that can end a conflict, as long as such action is not out of proportion to the expected damage.

[couch_sloth]

If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause bad consequences?

In part,
I think it depends on what would be considered a reasonably expected outcome of the "good action".
For example:
If I came upon a family stranded on the roadside and I gave them a ride to their home, only to have their hot-water heater explode killing them all (2 minutes after they arrived home). I would not be considered morally blameworthy, even though they would be alive if I hadn't given them a ride.
Why? ---> Because it would not be reasonable to consider my giving them a ride home as negligent (both in the legal and in the general sense).


If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause neutral consequences?

If I intend a good action and cause bad consequences, am I more or less morally blameworthy than if I intend a bad action and cause good consequences? In this example, am I actually to be praised for the good consequences of my actions (though caused by bad intentions)?

Please illustrate your views with the use of examples such as:

I intend to shoot Terrorist (good intention), but kill Civillian (bad consequence) then I am to be blamed because the end result is still Civillian dead and my intentions are therefore irrelevant.

But please try to keep it neutral rather than discussing any particular country or conflict! Thanks.

I suspect that more evil (i.e. "bad consequences") has been perpetrated by those believing they were doing a "good thing" (e.g. that they were doing the right thing for the greater good) than by those who believed their activity was "bad" or evil.

People need to be a little more skeptical about their belief systems/ideologies; especially when they view the suppression of other people's rights and killing as a necessary evil.

[BolshyFaker]

People need to be a little more skeptical about their belief systems/ideologies; especially when they view the suppression of other people's rights and killing as a necessary evil.

Sure, but once we build that sckepticism into our own worldview, do we have any reason not to act on our beliefs? How else could we act, and what would motivate us??:confused:

Probably another thread, but I tend to think that such language is basically a call for people to change their beliefs to another (undetermined) set of beliefs.

[laughing dog]

I intend to shoot Terrorist (good intention), but kill Civillian (bad consequence) then I am to be blamed because the end result is still Civillian dead and my intentions are therefore irrelevant.

In my opinion, if this happens once or twice, your intentions - as stated - are not irrelevant. However, if this is a persistent pattern of killing civilians in those situations, one's intentions can be questioned.

[CanoeMan]

If I intend to shoot a civilian, but simply miss, I am as bad as someone who has the same intent but simply is a better shot. The crimes "attempted murder" and "murder" should be punished in the same way.

If I intend to do something good, but fail and nothing good or bad happens, I shouldn't be punished because of my inadequacy. Except maybe if I'm in a line of work that demands a certain level of skill (a cop, fire fighter, etc) and then I could be reprimanded or maybe fired, but nothing more.

If I intend to do something good, but something bad happens, then I should be punished according to how foreseeable the bad outcome was.

[premjan]

I'd say it is harder to establish that a person is bad (would require evidence of a pattern of activity causing harm) than that an action is bad.

[BolshyFaker]

In my opinion, if this happens once or twice, your intentions - as stated - are not irrelevant. However, if this is a persistent pattern of killing civilians in those situations, one's intentions can be questioned.

Surely the better way of putting it is that your intentions are ALWAYS relevant to the morality of the action.

What changes is that as intentions (outside of thought experiments) are only known to the person who intends them, a series of actions of the kinds 'good intentions, bad consequences' leads to an inference that in fact the claimed good intentions are absent.

Therefore, in a purely hypothetical example, someone who genuinely makes 10 decisions of the kind 'good intent, bad outcome' is acting morally (but incompetently).

In the real world our knowledge of intentions arises in part out of the results of those intentions, so a chain of 10 decisions of the kind 'good intent, bad outcome' leads to an inference that the 'good intent' part isn't really there. And of coruse in the absence of good intentions we are likely to convict the person of immorality as well as incompetence.

PS - Isn't this actually really helpful for our specific debate? I give Israel the benefit of the doubt, you judge them on their pattern of causing civillian deaths, but our underlying world views are quite similar (unlike say a member of HAMAS who might have a whole other moral standpoint).

[BolshyFaker]

If I intend to shoot a civilian, but simply miss, I am as bad as someone who has the same intent but simply is a better shot. The crimes "attempted murder" and "murder" should be punished in the same way.

They are. In UK law at any rate both crimes attract the same sentences, though of course actually killing the person will tend to give a bit of an uplift to the jail time through aggravating factors like impact on the family and so on.

If I intend to do something good, but fail and nothing good or bad happens, I shouldn't be punished because of my inadequacy. Except maybe if I'm in a line of work that demands a certain level of skill (a cop, fire fighter, etc) and then I could be reprimanded or maybe fired, but nothing more.

Again, no dispute here personally.

If I intend to do something good, but something bad happens, then I should be punished according to how foreseeable the bad outcome was.

Might there not be times where a bad outcome is foreseen, but a moral action is still taken?