Intent vs. Action

[dead0man]

While the results of one's actions are important in general (the old cliché of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind), they most certainly do not, in my mind, have anything to do with morality.  Being incompetent or overenthusiastic does not mean you're immoral.

Very true.  Some of the most annoying people in the world are well-meaning idiots.  Take our president for example. 

Agreed.  I'd guess most of what we consider the "evil" people of history didn't consider themselves evil.  Their intent wasn't to do harm for harm's sake, they thought they were progressing their country or their peoples to a future, better life.  Stalin was full of good intentions for his country and he thought getting rid of all the smart people, Jews, Generals, etc was what was best for his country.  He was an evil moron of course, but he had good intentions.  Should he be forgiven?  If I push you into a manhole because I see bus coming right at you....3/4s of a mile down the road.  I might have had good intentions, but my actions were idiotic and evil looking by other onlookers.  I meant well, but I appeared evil.

I'd say the ends are more important than the means.  Doing good in a stupid way that ends up causing harm to others is often just as bad as being mean on purpose and causing harm to others.

(on the other hand, I can certainly undestand why poeple believe the opposite)

[dead0man]

Do you think most "bad things" in life are done by "bad people" who know full well what they are doing is bad?  I don't.  I think most "bad things" are caused by good intentions gone wrong, unforeseen negative consequences of innocient actions and accidents/bad luck.  Sometimes good people with good intentions do bad things.  Sometimes they too should be punished for it, not just the bad guys doing bad things.

Wait, we were "measuring morality" right?  On second thought I think it's like rating art, it's all in the eye of beholder.

[dead0man]

While both should be considered, intent is more important from a moral standpoint. Our justice system operates accordingly. Let's look at a few different scenarios involving someone dying.

1. A kills B in self defense. Though someone died, A receives no punishment because A's intent was to preserve his own life in the face of an immediate danger.
2. A kills B deliberately because A hated B. A is convicted for a murder charge.
3. A kills B with his car accidentally while driving drunk. Because A caused a death through reckless behavior, the death is not considered justified. However, A had no malicious intent so he is not considered as bad as he would be in the second scenario. A receives a vehicular manslaughter charge, which carries less weight than a murder charge.
4. A is lifting a heavy piece of furniture via rope and pulley into a tall building. The rope breaks and the furniture falls onto B, killing him. The incident is ruled an accident and A receives no punishment.

In the first two the killings are intentional, but the reasons motivating the intent are different. Defense of one's life is considered as "good" so no punishment is given. Taking another's life in cold blood is considered as "evil" so punishment is given. Clearly in these situations intent is most important.

In the third and fourth situation there really is no intent, so action is the only thing that can be weighed. The reason A receives punishment in the third scenario is because his actions were reckless and the situation preventable, making the accident A's fault. Punishment here isn't for A being "evil", it is to prevent A from commiting further reckless actions that could harm others. In the fourth scenario nobody is at fault so nobody is held accountable for the results.

The 4th guy would lose to, after the civil suit puts him in the poor house.

[dead0man]

The 4th guy would lose to, after the civil suit puts him in the poor house.

He would have to be found negligent somehow first - for instance if he had been using and old rope that by reasonable standards should have been replaced, or using a type of rope that wasn't appropriate for the job in question. If it was simply defective rope the case wouldn't stand in civil court, unless the suit was against the rope company and not the man using the rope.

So the lesson he learned was to not use defective rope?

[dead0man]

Right.  Your point was that the innocient person would "learn a lesson and not do it again" or some such.  If the rope broke because of a defaulty rope, he wouldn't learn anything.  If it broke because of something stupid he did, he'd learn something....and he'd get sued.  Thus "losing" like the other 3 dudes in your post.

[dead0man]

"2 Libertarians fighting on a Message Board" sounds like the start of a really good joke.  Pot would probably be involved somehow.  I can't come up with anything though.