Skip to main content

Our actions and their effects weigh more than our feelings and desires in the moment.

Perhaps driven by character and feeling, I have always considered effect to be at least as important as intent--and almost always more so.

When it matters, intent tends to augment, mitigate, or determine the degree of fault or laudability, rather than rendering an act moral or immoral. If no one is actually harmed (or is at some point likely to be) by an act, we don't generally worry too much about it. If you accidentally push somebody in a crowd, or push them to get past while being chased by murderous mobsters, that's not so bad as pushing the same person simply because you can, and it may be excused, but you probably still owe them an apology. If they stumble and fall after you shove them, you are responsible for whatever injury may occur. If you push them into traffic, and they are run over, your possible sentence and likely charge may be less than if your actions had been malicious, but there's a good chance you'll need legal representation.

Broadly, if no one gains from an act (or is at some point likely to), we don't usually reward it. If people tend to be hurt by something, even if no one wants that to happen, then we typically will eventually legislate or argue against that thing in some way. If people tend to gain from something, even if no one intends it, we will probably (eventually) encourage it.

We discourage and punish drunk driving, texting and driving, locking emergency exits, having too few life-boats on large vessels, and shooting guns into the air because these things can lead to grievous injury and death, even though that is almost never what was intended. We encourage people to wear safety-belts because (regardless of their feelings or intent) doing so can save their lives and lessen the likelihood of injury in the event of a crash. We reward and encourage people who have helped others, usually without putting them through a battery of tests to determine their mind-set, goals, and desires at the moment of action. There are many moments where we react without thinking. Such an explanation will not stop you from getting fired if you hastily tell your boss to fuck off, any more than it should stop someone from thanking you if you quickly pick up something they dropped and hand it to them.

Much of what we do is considered and justified after the fact, rather than during or before. When we think things through and thoroughly reason them out beforehand, we bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions--if not to the same degree as when we react in the moment, then more so.

Hence, the doctrine of double-effect strikes me as rather contrived and convenient. Its focus on intent is misguided, possibly harmful in making public policy, and inconsistent with how we tend to think and act. I consider it generally more clever and lawyerly (in the sophist's tradition) than realistic or straightforward. Put charitably, I think it reflects an interesting understanding of the mind, society, and ethics which predates much relevant study by at least 600 years.

It is, therefore, disappointing (if unsurprising) to read of SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch's support for such backward thinking. They say he is brilliant, highly skilled, and well qualified. Yet this is no deterrent to idiocy. Such is the human condition. We all do and believe dumb things from time to time. The problem is, this stupid belief undergirds the whole of his judicial philosophy. Alas.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars.  Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public.  There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays.  Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature.  They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study.  Most importantly, they are read. In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these.  But what of the wordless comic or silent play?  Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature?  These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer...

Every thief must go.

Robin , chapter 5  Previous Chapter Robin kept herself busy through her unemployment doing chores and practising martial arts, but mostly she spent time playing in the woods.  The bears avoided her, and she kept out of the thieves' way, as much as she could.  This was no easy task, for Sherman's Forest had its share of scoundrels. Chief of these was Lance Bucskin, infamous for scamming old ladies and still more renowned for his hatred of puppies, which he would kick whenever the chance arose.  Even his own men found his proclivities distasteful, but he had a way with weapons and highway robbery which held his fellows in awe. LANCE-- [clad in all green with a pointed cap; has a devil may care attitude; close cropped blond hair with a well waxed van dyke beard; 28 and in peak condition, he loves exhibiting his physical prowess as much as he enjoys booting little dogs; he is holding up a family as his rapt minions stand by] They're really not all that hard to im...

Reading requires effort, but so does lying about it.

It's in the very first sentence. Right wingers, Republicans, and libertarians who flog the Constitution of the United Sates of America to push their ideology of 'limited government' (except in matters of defence) have forgotten their sacred document's preamble.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  According to the Constitution, a founding purpose of the government it forms (and continues to inform) was to "promote the general Welfare".  Now, one may argue as to what policies do just that, but one cannot claim the Constitution makes no provision for it without either lying or being grossly ignorant of the writings in question.  Though it is against my...