>The "intent" in question isn't whether the "Clinton gang" wanted to bomb
>some target but rather whether they had any interest in destroying a
>pharmaceutical plant. That seems doubtful to me.
In criminal law, recklessness (conscious disregard of a known risk, or, colloquially. not giving a damn) or wilful blindness is tantmount o knowledge or intent.
Even as a
>consequentialist, I have a problem with Chomsky assigning moral
>responsibility on the basis of all the often unforeseeable consequences of
>an act as opposed to the original calculation of expected utility.
>
Anyway, as a consequentialist, you should care about the actual consequences, not aboiut the intent. The road to hell and all . . . .
Moreover, the failure to make good the damage is if possible more culpable than the original bombing, because then it was certainly known what was done and what the likely consequences would be.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp