/ 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.
