Comments on: Harming Intentionally, Helping Incidentally http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Intuitions http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18818 Intuitions Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:30:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18818 [...] The experiment in question is this one. [...] [...] The experiment in question is this one. [...]

]]> By: Robert Ellis http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18819 Robert Ellis Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:56:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18819 Or, instead of wasting money with ineffective, and circumventable regulation, we could just get rid of laws preventing those responsible from being held accountable for their actions. If a corporate officer new that he personally could be charged with murder and face the consequences for his decisions, he might be a bit more inclined to "make the right choice." Don't you think? The excess of law is what's causing the injustice, not the cure. Or, instead of wasting money with ineffective, and circumventable regulation, we could just get rid of laws preventing those responsible from being held accountable for their actions. If a corporate officer new that he personally could be charged with murder and face the consequences for his decisions, he might be a bit more inclined to “make the right choice.” Don't you think? The excess of law is what's causing the injustice, not the cure.

]]> By: Robert Ellis http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18817 Robert Ellis Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:56:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18817 Or, instead of wasting money with ineffective, and circumventable regulation, we could just get rid of laws preventing those responsible from being held accountable for their actions. If a corporate officer new that he personally could be charged with murder and face the consequences for his decisions, he might be a bit more inclined to "make the right choice." Don't you think? The excess of law is what's causing the injustice, not the cure. Or, instead of wasting money with ineffective, and circumventable regulation, we could just get rid of laws preventing those responsible from being held accountable for their actions. If a corporate officer new that he personally could be charged with murder and face the consequences for his decisions, he might be a bit more inclined to “make the right choice.” Don't you think? The excess of law is what's causing the injustice, not the cure.

]]> By: Guurzak http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18816 Guurzak Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:37:14 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18816 The important question is not whether the environmental effects were intentional or unintentional. The important question is why so many people give different answers to the question of intent when nothing changes except outcomes. The definition of intentionality is boring; the *inconsistency* is interesting. The important question is not whether the environmental effects were intentional or unintentional. The important question is why so many people give different answers to the question of intent when nothing changes except outcomes. The definition of intentionality is boring; the *inconsistency* is interesting.

]]> By: Juice http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18815 Juice Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:21:15 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18815 Neither action was intentional.<br><br>The guy explicitly said "I don't care about that. All I care about is the profit."<br><br>He didn't care one way or the other, so neither action can be considered intentional.<br><br>Why is this hard? Neither action was intentional.

The guy explicitly said “I don't care about that. All I care about is the profit.”

He didn't care one way or the other, so neither action can be considered intentional.

Why is this hard?

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18814 Anonymous Coward Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:36:55 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18814 When the company president says, "I don't care about [the environment]" he doesn't seem to mean, "All nature offends me and I will do what I can to wipe it out," but, "the environment is not a factor in this decision." His intent is to maximize profit, and whatever happens to the environment will happen. It's clear to be that environmental effects were not the intent of the decision, so I don't think we can call those effects intentional in this case.<br><br>Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling. When the company president says, “I don't care about [the environment]” he doesn't seem to mean, “All nature offends me and I will do what I can to wipe it out,” but, “the environment is not a factor in this decision.” His intent is to maximize profit, and whatever happens to the environment will happen. It's clear to be that environmental effects were not the intent of the decision, so I don't think we can call those effects intentional in this case.

Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling.

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18813 Anonymous Coward Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:33:26 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18813 When the company president says, "I don't care about [the environment]" he doesn't seem to mean, "All nature offends me and I will do what I can to wipe it out," but, "the environment is not a factor in this decision." His intent is to maximize profit, and whatever happens to the environment will happen. It's clear to be that environmental effects were not the intent of the decision, so I don't think we can call those effects intentional in this case.<br><br>Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling. When the company president says, “I don't care about [the environment]” he doesn't seem to mean, “All nature offends me and I will do what I can to wipe it out,” but, “the environment is not a factor in this decision.” His intent is to maximize profit, and whatever happens to the environment will happen. It's clear to be that environmental effects were not the intent of the decision, so I don't think we can call those effects intentional in this case.

Frankly, I don't think this is philosophy so much as semantic quibbling.

]]> By: Morning Links | The Agitator http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18812 Morning Links | The Agitator Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:11:25 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18812 [...] Harming intentionally, helping incidentally. [...] [...] Harming intentionally, helping incidentally. [...]

]]> By: GilM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18811 GilM Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:43:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18811 You don't have to <i>make</i> one.<br><br>You might only have to <i>find</i> one. You don't have to make one.

You might only have to find one.

]]> By: RobinHanson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/12/harming-intentionally-helping-incidentally/#comment-18810 RobinHanson Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:45:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2175#comment-18810 So what, we all need to make a fun video to introduce our blogs now? The bar is raised! So what, we all need to make a fun video to introduce our blogs now? The bar is raised!

]]>