Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Those three possible scenarios have exactly the same results, but my neighbour's motivations and intentions are different in each. Those differences, almost anyone would agree, are completely relevant to making a moral judgment about my neighbour's actions in starting the fire.
|
Okay, but that entire conversation then shifts the focus to the morality or intention of your neighbour's actions and not the impact of the dude whose house was set on fire. I get that, in theory, you can have both conversations simultaneously but that generally isn't how it works out in practice. Often we see intent tossed out at as a way to trivialize or discredit the impact of the action. When you have minorities say "Hey, that policy is racist," and policy-makers going "No it's not, because I didn't intend it to be racist," it negates the experiences of those impacted by it in favour of giving the perpetrator moral absolution. If the dude with the burned down house confronted your neighbour and said "Hey, you burned down my house," the widely accepted response to that would be "####, sorry. I'll help you with the repairs, etc." If the neighbour responded with "Well it wasn't my intent," we'd probably think he was an #######.