Intent vs. Action

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

[John Dibble]

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?

Err, no. He wouldn't have known the rope was defective, and would not have had a reason to think it was. Again, the incident described is one in which he is not at fault.

[John Dibble]

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.

What? No. Where did you get that rot - I'm talking about what our justice system is based on. Yes, it is supposed that a lesson might be learned, but history gives us many examples of people repeating their mistakes over and over again. The main point I was trying to make is how we weigh intent and action from a moral and practical standpoint. Intent is usually weighed before action/results, but in cases where there is no intent (or at least no ill intent) we typically judge action and results in terms of fault. That's all I'm trying to say.