Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:52 am**

How important is the intent of an action when compared to its effects?

If for example, one were to dare someone to jump off a roof because they genuinely wanted to see them hurt, most might agree they are clearly at fault. Even if the case were that they didn't want to see them hurt, but dared them simply because they were stupid, drunk, etc. Many would likely still agree that they shared some blame. The world is full of unintended consequences though, maybe you just invited someone over to the wrong place at the wrong time and they got hit by a car, pure consequentialism would dictate that you were the reason they were there to be hit by the car, but unless you are psychic it’s hard to claim responsibility, despite perhaps feeling guilty.

Some laws, such as “Good Samaritan Laws” even protect against liability for individuals (or sometimes just trained individuals) from liability should they choose to help someone, but instead end up hurting them. Some go so far as to make it a duty, making it a crime not to help someone who is in life-threatening danger.

On the flip side there are laws such as “Eggshell skull”, which enforce that if one causes harm, no matter the how unforeseeable the effects, then they are fully responsible for all damages by law. e.g.: “I only wanted to give him a little shove, how was I supposed to know he’d stumble into traffic?”

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:34 am**

/ wrote:How important is the intent of an action when compared to its effects?

I think it probably depends on the extent of the effects. It seems to me that the larger or more impactful the effect, the less important the intent was.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:13 am**

I don't want to understand the question, with the intent of perturbing you.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:46 pm**

Not totally relevant, but making a distinction between 'cause' and 'trigger' is important.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:08 pm**

ManBungalow wrote:Not totally relevant, but making a distinction between 'cause' and 'trigger' is important.

When you have nothing useful to add to a discussion, making an irrelevant aside which shows off the breadth of your knowledge is the next best thing...

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:16 pm**

Intent intent = new Intent(this,MainActivity.class);
intent.putExtra("POOPEDMYSELF",poopedmyself);
startActivity(intent);

...sorry...too much Android programming.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:47 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:Intent intent = new Intent(this,MainActivity.class);
intent.putExtra("POOPEDMYSELF",poopedmyself);
startActivity(intent);

...sorry...too much Android programming.

the money is at ios

Interesting topic, based in the fact that we think our actions are disconnected from our intentions. Why do we put people in jail, to punish them or to protect society from their behaviour?

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:11 pm**

nietzsche wrote: Why do we put people in jail, to punish them or to protect society from their behaviour?

Why can't the answer to that question be "both"?

If one had to pick one or the other, then it would be punishment over protecting society. Someone murdering/thieving/raping someone else isn't going to destroy a society.
The punishment for capital murder is mandatory prison terms and/or execution.
The punishment for thievery is jail time/probation/community service.
The punishment for rape is prison, probation and mandatory sex offender registration.

Depending on the state/county one is in, the punishments (and indeed even crimes!) are different. Thieves might get their hands chopped off as punishment in Saudi Arabia.

Protecting society, such a subjective term. Some say we need to turn to God to protect and "save society". Others say we need to reject religion completely to save, protect society. Others still say we need to let government control more and more to protect and save society while others say too much government destroys society. Some say we have to toss criminals in prison and throw away the key while others say we have to rehabilitate criminals, to save, protect, improve society.

Who's right? I guess it all depends on what kind of society each is looking to attain. Right?
It's just so subjective. I don't even know if you can really destroy a society, unless you kill every single member of said society. But society can certainly be altered. Like the altering of society when we forget that why we toss criminals in prison is for punishment for their crimes. Not to save society or even rehabilitation. Those are (especially the latter) fairly recent concepts. A good example of how society changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes not so much. Depends on how an individual views.

And some societies just aren't really worth saving. Human beings have been stamping out societies since the beginning of civilization. But mother nature is the best killer of societies I think.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:47 pm**

nietzsche wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:Intent intent = new Intent(this,MainActivity.class);
intent.putExtra("POOPEDMYSELF",poopedmyself);
startActivity(intent);

...sorry...too much Android programming.

the money is at ios

Interesting topic, based in the fact that we think our actions are disconnected from our intentions. Why do we put people in jail, to punish them or to protect society from their behaviour?

One's actions aren't totally disconnected from one's intentions. And that 'fact' can easily be bullshitted.

For example, "Oh I never intended to kill him. I was just really angry and (omitted: I wanted to kill him)."

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:53 pm**

patches70 wrote:If one had to pick one or the other, then it would be punishment over protecting society. Someone murdering/thieving/raping someone else isn't going to destroy a society.
The punishment for capital murder is mandatory prison terms and/or execution.
The punishment for thievery is jail time/probation/community service.
The punishment for rape is prison, probation and mandatory sex offender registration.

You didn't really answer the question of why we should punish people for committing crimes.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:56 pm**

/ wrote:How important is the intent of an action when compared to its effects?

If for example, one were to dare someone to jump off a roof because they genuinely wanted to see them hurt, most might agree they are clearly at fault. Even if the case were that they didn't want to see them hurt, but dared them simply because they were stupid, drunk, etc. Many would likely still agree that they shared some blame. The world is full of unintended consequences though, maybe you just invited someone over to the wrong place at the wrong time and they got hit by a car, pure consequentialism would dictate that you were the reason they were there to be hit by the car, but unless you are psychic it’s hard to claim responsibility, despite perhaps feeling guilty.

Some laws, such as “Good Samaritan Laws” even protect against liability for individuals (or sometimes just trained individuals) from liability should they choose to help someone, but instead end up hurting them. Some go so far as to make it a duty, making it a crime not to help someone who is in life-threatening danger.

On the flip side there are laws such as “Eggshell skull”, which enforce that if one causes harm, no matter the how unforeseeable the effects, then they are fully responsible for all damages by law. e.g.: “I only wanted to give him a little shove, how was I supposed to know he’d stumble into traffic?”

It depends on the seriousness of the outcome because having good intentions shouldn't serve as the Ultimate Excuse to avoid accountability. Otherwise, people could do all sorts of stupid things while being well-intended (e.g. politicians supporting wars or funding the mujahideen and current international, Islamic groups in Syria).

"Butterfly effect" examples should be ignored though. What's that clause in Law? Reasonable standard of care/duty? That'll cover those examples (e.g. the one in bold).
(RE: underlined, those places are stupid. If one doesn't know how to save someone, then we shouldn't force them into life-threatening situations Instead of having one victim, you get two. Genius. And, if you don't intervene, then you won't want to stay around and be a witness since you'll go to jail for failing to intervene. Sounds like a well-intended rule with poor consequences).

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:56 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:If one had to pick one or the other, then it would be punishment over protecting society. Someone murdering/thieving/raping someone else isn't going to destroy a society.
The punishment for capital murder is mandatory prison terms and/or execution.
The punishment for thievery is jail time/probation/community service.
The punishment for rape is prison, probation and mandatory sex offender registration.

You didn't really answer the question of why we should punish people for committing crimes.

Yeah, why enforce rules? That's stupid.

On a serious note, what's your position on corporeal punishment, retributive justice, and the like?

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:12 pm**

Rehabilitation is a purpose for jail as well.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:56 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:If one had to pick one or the other, then it would be punishment over protecting society. Someone murdering/thieving/raping someone else isn't going to destroy a society.
The punishment for capital murder is mandatory prison terms and/or execution.
The punishment for thievery is jail time/probation/community service.
The punishment for rape is prison, probation and mandatory sex offender registration.

You didn't really answer the question of why we should punish people for committing crimes.

Yeah, why enforce rules? That's stupid.

On a serious note, what's your position on corporeal punishment, retributive justice, and the like?

I think that retributive justice is antiquated (if it ever was justified to begin with). I am asking patches to defend it. The best he did in his post was to vaguely suggest that societies that lose sight of retributive justice also tend to decay in other ways. Unless there is some causal link there, I do not find that a compelling reason to continue doing it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:30 pm**

ManBungalow wrote:Not totally relevant, but making a distinction between 'cause' and 'trigger' is important.

Trigger was the smartest horse in show business.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:34 pm**

nietzsche wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:...sorry...too much Android programming.

the money is at ios

Is it really?

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:37 pm**

/ wrote:How important is the intent of an action when compared to its effects?

If for example, one were to dare someone to jump off a roof because they genuinely wanted to see them hurt, most might agree they are clearly at fault. Even if the case were that they didn't want to see them hurt, but dared them simply because they were stupid, drunk, etc. Many would likely still agree that they shared some blame. The world is full of unintended consequences though, maybe you just invited someone over to the wrong place at the wrong time and they got hit by a car, pure consequentialism would dictate that you were the reason they were there to be hit by the car, but unless you are psychic it’s hard to claim responsibility, despite perhaps feeling guilty.

Some laws, such as “Good Samaritan Laws” even protect against liability for individuals (or sometimes just trained individuals) from liability should they choose to help someone, but instead end up hurting them. Some go so far as to make it a duty, making it a crime not to help someone who is in life-threatening danger.

On the flip side there are laws such as “Eggshell skull”, which enforce that if one causes harm, no matter the how unforeseeable the effects, then they are fully responsible for all damages by law. e.g.: “I only wanted to give him a little shove, how was I supposed to know he’d stumble into traffic?”

You are mixing apples and oranges when you compare jumping off a roof & pushing someone into traffic to Good Samaritan rules.

No one can control the world. Stuff happens. That said, we are all obligated to undertake certain things as decent human beings to mitigate or control damage to others. That is what matters, not the intent.

If I throw a pillow and break the glass out of my window, cutting someone.. it is an accident that perhaps should have been prevented, but its something that could happen to most anyone. Most people would more or less forgive that, even if the consequences were serious. If I decide to go target shooting in my backyard and hit someone passing by.. not so forgivable, even if the consequences were minimal. That you did not intent to hurt anyone in either case is irrelevant. The point is that that throwing a pillow is not something generally known to cause harm, but shooting bullets very much is. Adding in the bit about drinking is a complication, but most people now understand that if you decide to make yourself incapable of making decisions properly, then it doesn't mean you are relieved of responsibility for your actions.

The Good Samaritan law, to contrast very much IS about intent. Most people want to help others. However, obtaining the training to truly help someone who is injured is hard. Yet, even someone who is highly trained might not always be able to act perfectly in an emergency. They might not have the time to fully assess the situation or they might just plain make errors. The Good Samaritan law is supposed to protect people as long as they act reasonably for their level of training. In practice, it is failing big time, partly because people often have to find fault with someone, find someone to blame in order to get payment for needed medical services. Add that to people's natural tendency to want to find someone to blame, some way to justify negative things and you have a nightmare.

At any rate, the key to both is reasonable action, not intent.

Posted: **Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:39 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
ManBungalow wrote:Not totally relevant, but making a distinction between 'cause' and 'trigger' is important.

Trigger was the smartest horse in show business.

I disagree! Mr Ed was clearly the smartest horse!!!!!!

Conquer Club

Consequence and Intent

Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent

Re: Consequence and Intent