> 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.
Like most consequentialists, I'm strictly an instrumentalist when it comes to the importance of intention. As we have seen on this very list, though, I find it to be a far more important instrument towards well-being than most non-consequentialists.
> Your answer here runs together
> "unintended" with "unforeseeable," which is a mistake.
Yes. I actually thought about that as I wrote, and decided that I didn't want to spend the time necessary to explicate the relevant distinction and its implications for my arguments.
> It also ignores the
> moral significance of not giving a damn, recklessness in law.
I'm not so sure about "also." Is this not the relevant distinction between "unintended" and "unforeseeable?"
> Never mind, I
> don't think that chewing over this 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.
But hatred of some of the most positive Western values (yes, there are some) is not as inconsequential as some on this list would like to believe, either. The left is in for a rough ride until we're all willing to acknowledge that.
-- Luke
> jks