That’s a rather poor, and inaccurate, description of Deontology.
I don’t think intent is key- an accidental death due to extreme negligence (say, by a drunk driver) is only a little “less bad” then an intentional murder, IMO. In my example, intent plays a part of how I judge it, but only a small one. Therefore, IMO, despite how common it is, extremely negligent behavior is morally reprehensible. Drunk driving is a terrible moral act, IMO, and almost as bad as intentional murder (and getting away with drunk driving is just a matter of luck). This is an instance where the morality and justice aspect have differences (and intent as well as consequences do and should play a large part in the justice system)- I think drunk driving (without death) is close to murder on the moral plane (because it carries a high risk of causing death), but I don’t believe the penalty should be as severe as murder (though it should be very harsh and very severe, IMO).
If the Belgian efforts are worse, they’re just a little bit worse, IMO.
They have some different lessons, but some of the same ones, IMO.
These were notable exceptions, though they are separate from the “slave/displaced native vs governing power” war narrative in my examples, and are more akin to criminal, murderous killing sprees.
I strongly disagree, homicide from negligence is on a completely different plane than homicide from malice.
We touched on this a bit earlier, but why, if you believe the acts are morally equivalent, should a negligent homicide carry a lesser criminal penalty than an intentional one? The criminal justice system is the primary agent of moral force in our society, after all.
Keeping with the theme of colonialism, then, what are we to make of the near-genocide of the natives of North America? Something like 90% of the deaths are attributable to diseases introduced by settlers. Can these settlers be blamed for killing so many, it certainly was not their intent, though it is indisputable that their coming to the continent was the ultimate cause of the lethal outbreaks. What is their moral culpability? I would say little to none.
Agreed.
If the moral war you speak of does not excuse murdering children, what behavior can it excuse?
Agreed.
DT, I was arguing that your statement is ALWAYS true. I agree that in the case of chattel slavery in the American South, it would almost certainly be true.
You’re thinking too hard, amigo. Just use the word “evil” to describe slaveholders. I do.
DT, I wasn’t arguing that your statement is ALWAYS too extreme. I agree that in the case of chattel slavery in the American South, it would almost certainly be true.
You’re thinking too hard, amigo. Just use the word “evil” to describe slaveholders. I do.
Basic negligence is different- I’m talking about extreme negligence. I think the amount of recklessness and callousness towards human life required for such extreme negligence is almost as bad as murder from malice. So I’m not talking about a basic distracted driver who loses control and kills someone, I’m talking about extremely negligent behavior (which, IMO, includes drunk driving).
I don’t believe it’s the primary agent, but I agree it is important. I don’t believe they’re morally equivalent, but extreme negligence leading to death is close to intentional murder, IMO (and the penalties are not that far apart, IIRC- perhaps ~20 years for negligent homicide, vs perhaps 30 to life for 1st degree murder- though this undoubtedly varies by locality and my knowledge may be deficient on this subject). My example was that extreme negligence not resulting in death (say, your basic DUI) does and should have a significantly lesser penalty then extreme negligence resulting in death, because a big part of the justice system is delivering justice to the aggrieved party. And in your basic DUI, there is no aggrieved party, and the penalty is instituted purely for its deterrent and corrective value (prevent DUIs and teach DUI offenders the error of their ways).
Using the “reasonable man” test is instructive here- reasonable people did not know germ theory and about communicable diseases back then, though undoubtedly many settlers did engage in other sorts of morally reprehensible behavior.
It can certainly excuse killing slave-owners, and/or anyone else getting between a slave and his/her freedom. I even have another thread I started a while back on precisely this subject, and the consensus was (IIRC) that a slave was certainly justified in killing his owner and anyone else who tries to keep him or her in bondage.
I side with Human Action on this one. It is easy to find “errors” in moral calculation when applying either purely deontological or purely teleological moral systems. Neither approach provides a satisfatory model for deciding all moral questions. I actually find no moral value in the act itself at all. The act is given moral weight only because of the intent and the consequences. To use the example in the OP, if a Dom whips a Sub in a consenting sado-masochistic relationship then the “act” has a very different moral valuation than in either of his 2 cases.
The only things human beings can bring to a moral evaluation (what shoudl I do?) are:
[ul][li]An [imperfect] understading of the context in which the decision must be made[/li][li]An [imperfect] understanding of the outcomes of various possible choices to be made[/li][li]And a set of intentions to achieve (or avoid) one or more outcomes.[/ul][/li]All 3 are necessarily limited by the capabilities of human agents. In some cases, the unerstanding of outcomes, at least in the proximate, might be more clear than the one’s own intent. But in my eperience those cases are more rare. Usually my understanding of my own intent exceeds my ability to predit the outcomes of my actions.
Now - when we are trying to assign a moral value to someone else’s actions we add additional uncertainty into our understanding of intent as well. That is why we should be more cautious in asserting “absolute” moral valuations to someone else’s actions.
I’d assumed you meant criminal negligence, with drunk driving as an example. Again, though, in moral terms, to me operating a motor vehicle while drunk and killing someone, is a completely different thing from deliberately murdering a person. So, not “almost as bad” in my view.
Now I’m curious; what is the primary agent of moral force to our society?
I’m sure it does vary wildly. In my home state of Kentucky, killing someone while driving drunk is second-degree manslaughter, a Class C felony, punishable by not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years in prison, and a fine of $1,000-$10,000.
Murder, by contrast, (Kentucky doesn’t have degrees of murder) is a capital crime, punishable by either life imprisonment or death. So, Kentucky at least recognizes a moral difference.
Are the two acts, one causing a death, the other not, equally wrong in moral terms?
That means you absolve them purely on the basis of intent, correct? As opposed to the act, or its consequences?
I can agree with this.
I agree with your take: acts have little moral value in themselves, and while consequences may be unknown, intent is not. This is part of what makes it a more useful guidepost than consequence.
Ok, we’re allowed to disagree.
If there is one, I’d say it’s culture as a whole- and it’s probably different in each society (in many it would be the church or the mosque, most likely).
No, but if they have the same element and amount of negligence, then they’re pretty close.
No, I absolve them on the basis of what they could have known at the time- so I guess that would be the surrounding circumstances.
Isn’t this backwards? How can intent be known (without a mind-reader or a confession)? Consequences can obviously be known with time.
Agreed.
Hmmmm…perhaps, but I’d say that the culture demonstrates what it thinks is right and wrong via the criminal justice system.
Again, have to agree to disagree here.
Intent is known to the actor. This is where morality and criminal justice part ways again; intent can only be known to a certainty by the actor, but others may infer intent from action. Similarly, consequences may be known with time, but if they aren’t known at the time of the action, their moral value is limited.
I was speaking of morality in terms of Spiritus Mundi’s question, “What should I do?” Intent is the most important criterion to answer that question satisfactorily, from a moral perspective.
]Human Action already answered part of this, but I also want to point out that to say “consequences can obviously be known with time” indicates that at some priviliged point in time the results of an action stop “mattering” to future events. This isn’t necessarily wrong, and one can argue a few philosophical defenses for such a view, but when it comes to human judgment it does raise teh question of: “how can we know when all teh important consequences have run their course?” It necessarily takes a short-term view of consequences. This is often necessary in cases of criminal justie systems, but I find it troubling as a foundation for a morality.
Among other things, it makes it impossible to know whether an act will be moral until some point post piori when all of the material consequences have been identified and weighed.
Without doubt the slaveholders were evil. But the North wasn’t that much better in their treatment of Blacks. It took another 100 years after the Civil War before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to become law. So in the year 2013 have things changed that much? I work in Oakland, CA and many of the Blacks here sympathize with what happened with the Sandy Hook shooting. But almost across the board they said that if the shooting occurred in a Black elementary school, the shooting would have gotten half or less than half the publicity Sandy Hook did.
We all know people who go through life ‘intending’ to be better people. You are not your intentions, you are your actions, in reality, I think.
Well - setting aside for now questions of identity and epistemology, what we have been discussing thus far is teh intention that informs a person’s decision to take an action. Intentions that are not acted upon have essentially no moral value.
I think intent is the most important, but not sole, factor in deciding whether an action is immoral. Other factors include things like negligence.
The OP sets up an example where the slave-owner’s intent might be good but absolutely everything else is wrong. The slave-owner is completely ignorant of other viewpoints and is doing nothing to minimize the chance of actually doing something that increases the suffering in the world. You can’t willfully put blinkers on, then say you acted in good faith.
IOW and IMO, having good intentions includes making a reasonable effort to check that your action is a positive one.
In my job as an ER nurse with a peds backround, I am called upon to stick needles into children on a regular basis, and am lauded for my ability to get the job done quickly and well. If I stuck the same needle in the same kid because I get a hard-on when I hear them scream, I would be widely condemned as evil. This distinction is completely lost on the 1 y/o.
I see your point, but “intent” as it’s being discussed here is in relation to specific actions, not in the general sense of life goals and etc.
But intentions are like aspirations and dreams, whereas actions are the facts and reality. In the fullness of time you will be judged not by your intentions, but by your actions. For good reason do we say, “Actions speak louder than words.” Because it’s true.
It’s true in a practical sense because often it is difficult to ascertain what someone’s intention was. And actions speak louder than words because some people lie, exaggerate or are deluded.
But sure, in cases where it’s clear that someone meant well, the law, and most people’s opinion, is that they have committed either a less serious crime, or no crime at all.
(Again this has to be tempered against negligence: if you’re doing an “end justifies the means” type action, and you’re not even making an effort to check that the ends really are objectively better, that’s not normally considered good intentions. You’re acting recklessly and putting a low importance on the risk of making other people’s lives worse).