Topics Ethics

Question How responsible are we for the things we do by accident? I was recently on the phone with my sister, and she was telling me how she accidentally left the tap on in her apartment, which flooded the kitchen and damaged the cupboards and floor. She was extremely ashamed of herself, but she was even more upset that her boyfriend got angry at her for doing so, since she says she didn't intend to leave the tap running (and I'm inclined to believe her; why should she?). It's clear she is responsible, in a causal and financial way, for the damages, but is she morally responsible in such a way that justifies anger or punishment against her, despite the fact that she had no ill intent? Or does intent not matter in such cases?

Accepted:
July 12, 2012

Comments

Assuming one doesn't take the skeptical view that no one is really responsible for anything (in the sense of justifiably deserving anger, punishment, etc.), then I think the answer to your question is that we are responsible for bad outcomes we do not intentionally bring about if we were negligent--that is, if we did not take precautions to prevent a bad outcome that we should have know was probable if we failed to take such precautions.

In the case of your sister, it seems she was negligent. She should have (and could have) turned off the tap, and she presumably knew that failing to do so might cause significant problems. But the details matter. Did she have reason to believe that leaving a tap on will cause flooding (was the drain closed)? Were there mitigating circumstances (e.g., something distracted her in a such a way that it is reasonable to think would distract most people from remembering to turn off the tap)?

Again, without getting into the complexity of the free will debate, which raises questions of whether any of us really could avoid doing bad things we do (and how to understand the "could" here) and whether any of us really should be held responsible for bad things we do (and how to understand the "should" here), the legal definition of negligence seems about right: " failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances."

But even assuming your sister was negligent and morally blameworthy for her negligence, it is not clear how people (e.g., her boyfriend) should respond to her behavior. Forgiveness seems appropriate, especially if she has taken responsibility, shown appropriate remorse, and indicated that she has "learned her lesson" and will try to avoid such accidents in the future.

Finally, such questions always raise the fascinating issue of "moral luck". Had someone come in and turned off the tap or had the drain leaked, etc., such that no damage was caused, your sister would have been equally negligent (e.g., would have performed the same actions), but the better outcome would presumably make us (and her boyfriend) less angry and find her less blameworthy. This counterfactual offers some reason to think forgiveness is appropriate.