Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[Excited Penguin]

How does that work though regarding accidents?

If I accidentally run someone over, is that as bad as deliberately running them over?

If I try to shoot someone but end up hitting something which then helps them in some way, is my action moral?

This is why intent matters to me: we don't always achieve exactly what we intend.

Well, accidentally running someone over (presuming that it doesn't happen because of some conscious decision you've made, such as texting or drinking), is not the same action as assaulting someone with a deadly weapon, which is immoral regardless of the car being the weapon. When you ran the person over accidentally, you were not "in the act" of running them over, per se, you were just in the act of going to the store (or whatever). The action you were taking was not immoral. If you're at fault, then you might be responsible and have to make amends somehow, but that's not the same as being wrong.


I suppose intent does play a role in how we classify actions as either negligent or malicious, and in turn does have an impact on the morality of an action itself, so I'm probably oversimplifying by trying to rule it out entirely, but in the practical sense it really is action that matters. In a court of law, for example, establishing the "intent" would involve finding some kind of evidence that the person took actions which suggest they premeditated what they did (talking to someone about their plans, writing their plans down, purchasing the things they need for the plan months in advance, etc.). Everyone thinks their own intentions are good (generally), and it's practically impossible to know another person's intentions without looking at their outward words and actions (if that's even possible, depending on the case).


To use another example, there are people who kill/permanently damage their children because they forsake modern medicine in favor of prayer or witchcraft. Despite the fact that their intent is to heal, their actions are still grossly immoral. Still, that's not the same series of actions as laying out a set of plans, gathering supplies for the plan, and then murdering someone according to the plan. While intent separates those actions as to how they're defined, action (and to some degree perhaps words, insofar as we can trust/corroborate them) is still how we determine which act was actually committed.

---

Penguin, I thought your response was a little douchey, and I was going to respond anyway, but after seeing what you said to Eevie (before deleting it like a coward) I've pretty well written you off as a complete dick, so I don't think I'll bother. Lighten up, dude.

If you had understood my argument, or had been able to understand it, you wouldn't have had any reason to respond to it, especially not the way you did. So I think an apology is in order, lectures and insults only work on people who understand them. In other words, if you really are the moron I'm accusing you of pretending to be, I don't have to be an ass to you. I'll just manipulate you into liking me - or be nice, as it's otherwise called.

Did I just think write that out loud?