Luke
I'm not a consequentialist in part because I don't think c-ism can take into account the moral significance of intentions in the right way. If you think you can make it fly, that's your project. Your answer here runs together "unintended" with "unforeseeable," which is a mistake. It also ignores the moral significance of not giving a damn, recklessness in law. Never mind, I don't think that chewing over thsi analogy is worth while. The fact is that part of the reason we are in this pickle is that the US has deliberately and intentionally taken actions that have lead to millions of deaths, thus enraging lots of people and obviously driving some of them over the brink to crime and mass murder of their own. That's not a justification of 9/11, but if we think that there is nothing but irrational hatred of our freedom, etc. behind this crime, we can expect a lot more of the same. I fear that we are in for a rough ride.
jks
> > Now you are being obtuse. Sure, the law is supposed to deter bad acts.
>It
> > takes intentions into account insofar as it assumes that people would
>rayer
> > not get caught, be punished, pay money, go to jail, or otherwise have
>bad
> > things happen to them.
>
>That was my point: intent is instrumental in shaping action, therefore
>intent should be given more weight in assigning moral or legal
>responsibility than unintended consequences. By definition, the agent has
>no conscious control over the latter. If you simply want to use ultimate
>consequences as the barometer of responsibility and completely discount
>intent, Chomsky could've plausibly said that the terrorist attacks weren't
>all that bad because they didn't inflict as many casualties as the AIDs
>virus does on a daily basis. Why should we care that the latter aren't
>agents if we don't care about what agents actually attempt to do?
>
> > It is not supposed to wash your soul in the Blood of
> > the Lamb. You can commit adultery in your wicked heart to your heart's
> > wicket content. The law only cares if your behavior violates its rules.
>I
> > forgetw hy we got onto this. --jks
>
>I believe the argument was over whether or not we should care that Clinton
>and crew tried to minimize civilian casualties when they decided to bomb
>the
>Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.
>
>-- Luke
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp