The AskPhilosophers logo.

Ethics

Hi, a friend of mine posited an interesting thought experiment (which may or may not be original) and it goes like this. A man's walking down the road when he gets shot at. The shooter misses but the sound of the shot startles the man so much that he jumps out of the way of an oncoming bus that would have most certainly killed him. The shooter runs away because he's afraid of drawing attention to himself. What is the moral judgement on this shooter who inadvertently saved a life while intending on taking it? What value is attached to morally 'good' actions motivated by 'bad' intentions? If the emphasis is not on an individual's inherent motivations, then I have another question which perhaps requires separate scrutiny to the first one but is related nonetheless: could colonialism ever be regarded as a moral act, given that it created several moral 'goods' (think of the abolition of widow immolation in India known as sati, or several brutal initiation ceremonies in tribal Africa) even though the underlying intentions were often unquestionably 'bad'?
Accepted:
May 19, 2008

Comments

Douglas Burnham
June 11, 2008 (changed June 11, 2008) Permalink

Thought experiments of just this kindhave led many philosophers to reject consequentialism as the primarydetermination of ethical action, as I'm sure you are aware. However, even a die-hard consequentialist would likely conclude thatyour would-be assassin's action was reprehensible and had no othermoral value. Why? Because it only makes sense to talk about theconsequences of an action having moral value (or not) if they couldhave been predicted at the time. Without predictability (though ofcourse never rock solid), consequentialism would be useless as amoral compass. Therefore, unpredicted consequences are fortuitous,but it's not meaningful to call them 'moral'. Thus also we condemnsomeone who causes harm through carelessness, claiming that he couldand should have foreseen the consequences; but we also leave room forpure accidents.

Notice, however, that this is quitedifferent from saying that 'bad' intentions might have 'good'consequences. Suppose, for example, in my role as emperor of theworld, that I command a law that all people have to do X. The policeforce charged with enforcement of this law might be corrupt andvicious to a man (and so might I), but if the law has good (andforeseeable) consequences then both the act of commanding it and theenforcing of it have a claim to be morally valuable. This might helpus with your thoughts about colonialism.

Problems of consequences in ethics have been discussed many times on this site. Please click on 'ethics' to your left, and search for 'consequences'.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/2168?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org