Which do you think is morally worse- (if you can even discern a moral line, that is) having bad intentions but not acting on them or having good intentions but doing harm?

Example A- A man, let's call him Rudy, knows who a serial killer who has killed 10 people is. However, there isn't enough evidence to hold/convict the killer, and he would be released if he were arrested. Therefore, to stop him from killing again, Rudy shoots him. Unfortunately, the man Rudy shoots is not the killer, but his identical twin, who is perfectly law abiding. Rudy goes to prison for killing an innocent man, and the serial killer, unchecked, takes 10 more victims before he is caught.

Example B- A woman, let's call her Marcia, is trying to kill her ex-husband and his children. She gets to his apartment and starts shooting at him and the children, (who haven't wronged her, she is just bitter) but hits only the husband, incapacitating him. What Marcia didn't know was that the husband, crazed by grief, had planned to go into a mall later that night and start shooting at innocent civilians. By paralyzing him with a bullet to the spine, she saved many people at the mall (he was a well trained shooter and could have taken out several people before being apprehended.)


Now, I'm asking you to try to tell me- who is a better person in all this, Rudy or Marcia? It's okay if you can't answer, as it is a difficult question. Do our intentions or our actions determine our value to the earth?

I'm not being coy here, but are you saying Rudy had good intentions by attempting murder, even on someone who allegedly murdered 10 people? Murder is murder, so no, I would say those are not good intentions even if he killed the actual alleged murderer.

Example B is easier: If I unknowingly walk by a serial killer on the street and fail to prevent her next killing, am I complicit in her next crime? Of course not! I cannot be held accountable because I knew nothing of her future crimes. Likewise, Marcia cannot be held accountable (morally and criminally) for "saving" those next ten lives because she allegedly unknowngly prevented their would-be murder.

I'm not being coy here, but are you saying Rudy had good intentions by attempting murder, even on someone who allegedly murdered 10 people? Murder is murder, so no, I would say those are not good intentions even if he killed the actual alleged murderer.

Let's assume, for the purposes of the hypothetical, that Rudy witnessed every crime and was 100 percent sure of the killer. Let's also assume (and I know this doesn't quite jive with the criminal justice system, but hypotheticals don't always have to agree with real life) that the only way to stop the serial killer is for Rudy to shoot him. Otherwise, 10 people die. Would Rudy's actions then not be justified? Under current conditions in the U.S, I would never advocate killing someone who is not currently commiting a crime (i.e. not pointing a gun at someone), but if Rudy had no other options, would you consider his actions unjustified?

Yeah ya know, I hate to be such a ninny, but that's the problem with hyoptheticals. I mean, what this comes down to, with all due respect Pasta, is absurdity. Isn't it absurd that this situation actually obtain? Not only does Rudy have to have 100% epistemelogical perfection regarding the crimes, but also 100% (or extremely high in any case) certainty of all future events regarding the future crimes (the only way he would indeed have "no other options"). You don't have to be a bodiless brain in a vat (insider joke for the epistemology students in the audience) to see that such foresight is utterly implausible.

Regardless, I could take this viewpoint: Given 100% certainty - were that possible - of both the prior and future crimes, it is still not justified for Rudy to be the agent of criminal judgement (for that is the agency of the courts) nor is it justified that Rudy be the moral judge of the criminal, lest he be God, and there, but for the grace of God, goes Rudy the Murderer, himself.

Of course, you may ask "God? Who said anything about God?" And then I have to say "ah, but when I say moral, I mean something to the effect of 'in keeping with what God commands to be right'" But then THAT whole debate comes up....

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!

Everyone forgets poor Jan.

If you're talking by just judgeding by this action they did.. I'd say Rudy. As Marcia shot her childrens father infront of them.

But yeah basically murder is murder is murder. Both equal.

I'd be hesitant to condone either instance of vigilantism.

Look at what happened -- Rudy was sure that he had the right man, but killed an innocent person. (If he made that mistake, perhaps he made a mistake IDing the "guilty" party.) While Marcia was planning to murder children in cold blood.

It ends up being like a debate on who is a better person: John Wilkes Booth or John Hinckley. Booth killed Lincoln since he believed in the cause of the fallen south, while Hinckley attempted to kill Reagan because he was undeniably insane. So who is better?

I don't believe murder is murder per se, intentions are positively everything imo.
For example, it is one thing to be driving your car and have a bug splat on your windshield, and it is completely another to be that kid with the magnifying glass burning ants for the fun of it.

I think both of them are messed up.

Having bad intentions and not acting on them takes more strength than having good intentions but still doing something bad with them, in my opinion.

One murder, one attempted murder and both of them were premeditated. Taking the scenarios into account, they're both as bad as each other.

Rudy is the better person in the beginning and the end
having good intentions and accidentally srewing up is better than having bad intentions, screwing up and have other people benefit in some way from the screw-up
Accidents, good or bad, don't make anyone bad or good they have absolutely nothing to do with morals or one's personality, so i'm not even sure why we're mentioning them

Which do you think is morally worse- (if you can even discern a moral line, that is) having bad intentions but not acting on them or having good intentions but doing harm?
...
Now, I'm asking you to try to tell me- who is a better person in all this, Rudy or Marcia? It's okay if you can't answer, as it is a difficult question. Do our intentions or our actions determine our value to the earth?

I think this is very confused.

The "which is morally worse" question relates to actions/intentions. The "who is a better person" question relates to character and/or to an overall moral evaluation of the person. Unfortunately, these are two different questions and, based on your examples, would produce (from me) two different and paradoxical answers.

As to which is morally worse, Rudy's behavior is worse since he killed an innocent man; Marcia's behavior is better since she only severely injured a man.

As for who is a better person, it would seem to me that Rudy is a better person than Marcia, since Rudy acted from a desire to protect the lives of others, while Marcia's motivation is entirely unclear and may have just been spite or hatred toward her ex..

So, there you have a paradox--the better person produced the worse behavior.

I think as a more general proposition it is usually the case that harmful actions spring from bad intentions, which is why the Bible condemns having evil in one's heart, etc.

I think this is very confused.

The "which is morally worse" question relates to actions/intentions. The "who is a better person" question relates to character and/or to an overall moral evaluation of the person. Unfortunately, these are two different questions and, based on your examples, would produce (from me) two different and paradoxical answers.

As to which is morally worse, Rudy's behavior is worse since he killed an innocent man; Marcia's behavior is better since she only severely injured a man.

As for who is a better person, it would seem to me that Rudy is a better person than Marcia, since Rudy acted from a desire to protect the lives of others, while Marcia's motivation is entirely unclear and may have just been spite or hatred toward her ex..

So, there you have a paradox--the better person produced the worse behavior.

I think as a more general proposition it is usually the case that harmful actions spring from bad intentions, which is why the Bible condemns having evil in one's heart, etc.
Good point. Sorry for the ambiguity, I was typing late at night and my thoughts were muddled. I think I was trying to ask who the better person was.

>>Murder is murder, so no, I would say those are not good intentions even if he killed the actual alleged murderer.
>>

why would things be so simple?
at this point, my moral perspective is an open book...so perhaps you guys can sway me in a particular direction.

ebola

It depends on whether they spellcheck their posts.

I think perhaps Rudy was guilty of a justified murder, unfortunately he killed the wrong guy. It reminds me of a question that's come up here for capital punishment - if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?

Marcia, well I guess really her moral intentions have nothing to do with this because she wasn't trying to stop her husband from killing.

Assuming that we take the killing of a murderer as necessary and acceptable, I think we can't be justified in accusing Rudy of the action itself, since he couldn't have gone outside his own point of view, and according to his point of view the action was reasonable. We can accuse him only for that point of view - for example, we can say that he didn't take enough precautions to ensure that he was right about the person, etc.

I think perhaps Rudy was guilty of a justified murder, unfortunately he killed the wrong guy. It reminds me of a question that's come up here for capital punishment - if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would you?




Come to think of it, wouldn't it have been morally irresponsible for Rudy not do try and stop the killer as the killer would keep killing?

Come to think of it, wouldn't it have been morally irresponsible for Rudy not do try and stop the killer as the killer would keep killing?
That was for what I was going, yes.

That was for what I was going, yes.


DING DING DING! What did I win?

I think both are idiots. I don't think Rudy's intentions were all that good. I think it takes supreme arrogance to decide that you should be jury, judge and executioner. Surely there are other things he could have done if he knew who the serrial killer was. He could have written editorials to the newspaper and posted the information he has on the web. He could have followed him around to keep tabs on him and try to prevent him from killing again. He could have posted flyers thoughout the city warning people to beware of the guy. Also, if there isn't enough evidence to convict the serial killer, how could Rudy be absolutely sure it's him?

And Marcia's just an idiot, no explanation necessary.

Both are idiots. Neither one is a good person.

Assuming that we take the killing of a murderer as necessary and acceptable, I think we can't be justified in accusing Rudy of the action itself, since he couldn't have gone outside his own point of view, and according to his point of view the action was reasonable. We can accuse him only for that point of view - for example, we can say that he didn't take enough precautions to ensure that he was right about the person, etc.

No, even in systems where capital punishment is authorized, only the State may exercise capital punishment, not the individual.

One of the reasons we have laws against murder is to deter people from killing other people where there is mistaken identity--however strange or unusual that may be. (Think of the opposite system--people could go around killing other people, and then claim that they mistook the victim for someone on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list. It would practically be a license to commit murder.) The fact that he mistook the identity of the victim would be absolutely no defense in a court of law. There is no "point of view" defense.

I don't think shooting people is nice in any circumstance. :)

>>No, even in systems where capital punishment is authorized, only the State may exercise capital punishment, not the individual.>>

The law has no bearing on questions of right and wrong.

ebola