Why does intent matter?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why does intent matter? » Why does intent matter?

Why does intent matter?
Surely the outcome decides the morality.

Why does intent matter?

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/01/08 - 01:20 PM: Subject: Why does intent matter?	#1
I was discussing euthanasia recently, and an idea that kept cropping up is that somehow passive euthanasia (i.e. switching off the life support machine) is morally acceptable while active euthanasia (i.e. administering a lethal does of morphine) isn't. (Let's assume for the moment that consent issues etc. do not apply here). I do not understand this line of thinking: the result is the same either way. From what I can see, it is no different from the difference between (actively) pushing someone off a ladder and (passively) removing the ladder from under them. In that case we would call both murder, so why the special pleading over euthanasia? Can someone help me out?
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1316

Posted 05/01/08 - 02:47 PM:	#2
In a word: uncertainty. Where there is no uncertainty, there is no difference between intent and consequence.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/01/08 - 03:13 PM:	#3
Ataxia wrote: I was discussing euthanasia recently, and an idea that kept cropping up is that somehow passive euthanasia (i.e. switching off the life support machine) is morally acceptable while active euthanasia (i.e. administering a lethal does of morphine) isn't. (Let's assume for the moment that consent issues etc. do not apply here). I do not understand this line of thinking: the result is the same either way. From what I can see, it is no different from the difference between (actively) pushing someone off a ladder and (passively) removing the ladder from under them. In that case we would call both murder, so why the special pleading over euthanasia? Can someone help me out? Actually, what you're looking at is not a difference in intent (since in all the cases mentioned the intent to kill is there), but rather a difference in the type of action. In particular, you're touching on the difference between killing and letting die. If you wanted to look at intention, then one of the cases in each pair there should involve an unintentional killing (e.g. accidentally causing a blackout that cuts off the power supply to the support machine in the first case, or tripping and knocking over the ladder).
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/03/08 - 11:39 PM:	#4
Your logic is backwards. In all these examples it is the outcome that is the same, death. It is the intent and action that differ. Is the intended death for mercy or for murder? Is the action passive, allowing death, or active, enacting death?
It is what it is.

RedPhoenix
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 16

Posted 05/04/08 - 12:14 AM:	#5
I think the difference lies in the fact that passive cases are more along the lines of "finally letting nature take its course" as opposed to active cases which i view more as "forcing the death." Everyone will die eventually so lets just take an active approach and blow the world up, shall we? I realize in the case of pulling life support vs. a lethal injection the results are much more predictable and similar, but even if you look at it from a cost perspective, why spend the money for the injection if they will die quickly anyway?

Inthedark
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 05/04/08 - 12:27 AM:	#6
I agree with you ataxia I don't think it matters if it is passive or active euthanasia as the end is the same but I think I can see why people would think that way. I think passive euthanasia is seen as more acceptable because it is the withdrawing of treatment eg. medication or life support which the person needs to survive. You could then argue that if the person in question would have died long ago if it had not been for the treatment the life support or medication is keeping them in a sort of "artificial life" and since death is most likely inevitable when they discontinue treatment it might as well be sooner than later. In active euthanasia you help someone die who would not have died had it not been for you (even if they were terminally ill and would have only survived another week.)

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/04/08 - 11:55 AM:	#7
klorius wrote: Actually, what you're looking at is not a difference in intent (since in all the cases mentioned the intent to kill is there), but rather a difference in the type of action. In particular, you're touching on the difference between killing and letting die. If you wanted to look at intention, then one of the cases in each pair there should involve an unintentional killing (e.g. accidentally causing a blackout that cuts off the power supply to the support machine in the first case, or tripping and knocking over the ladder). A better example (that I should have used) was the Catholic Church's position is that it is OK to give a lethal does of morphine so long as the intent is to relive pain rather than to end life.
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/04/08 - 11:59 AM:	#8
RedPhoenix wrote: I think the difference lies in the fact that passive cases are more along the lines of "finally letting nature take its course" as opposed to active cases which i view more as "forcing the death." Everyone will die eventually so lets just take an active approach and blow the world up, shall we? I realize in the case of pulling life support vs. a lethal injection the results are much more predictable and similar, but even if you look at it from a cost perspective, why spend the money for the injection if they will die quickly anyway? This sounds to me like an appeal to nature (a formal fallacy). It is natural for us to die does that mean it is OK to let someone die when you can save their life? No. Similarly "letting nature take its course" is no better/worse than actively forcing nature to take its course.
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/04/08 - 02:41 PM:	#9
If you look at the ideology from a perspective of "just" reasoning. For instance if you look at euthanasia cases in Britain, if the NHS are involved in the say as well as the parents and they are both co-operating into euthanasia in best interests of the patient, well what is wrong with it? Would it be right for someone to live another 20 years of painstaking agony or in a constant vegetative state rather than putting them out of thier misery? It is in best interests. Also if active euthanasia was insisted upon by a person and they desired to be killed, I would think that there needs to be a psychological assessment and to make sure they are not in a delusional state or suffering from personality disorders before administering, in which it should proceed with a signed letter and approval in front of witnesses to make the process intentional by the person recieving it. Bein a psychologist though, I do not really believe in killing oneself, there maybe mental disorders that cause severe manic depression, etc, but it can be helped. However if it is so severe that a person is in a constant vegetative state or in constant agony, there is need to do so if it means that it is putting them out of years of physical torment. I hope ones views do not sound too controversial!

Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 422

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/06/08 - 09:00 PM:	#10
Intent is important to consider because outcomes are often foiled. Take attempted murder, for example--we could say that because in the end there was no harm (e.g. an officer of the law stopped you before you could spray the cyanide), there was also no foul. Intent should not be the only means of judging an individual's actions, but the action itself likewise cannot and should not be the only factor taken into consideration. As far as passive and active euthanasia go, I'm afraid that I'm not seeing a difference, even at the level of intent. The very word "euthanasia" describes a specific intent, does it not?

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/07/08 - 12:44 PM:	#11
Goaswerfraiejen wrote: Intent is important to consider because outcomes are often foiled. Take attempted murder, for example--we could say that because in the end there was no harm (e.g. an officer of the law stopped you before you could spray the cyanide), there was also no foul. Intent should not be the only means of judging an individual's actions, but the action itself likewise cannot and should not be the only factor taken into consideration. As far as passive and active euthanasia go, I'm afraid that I'm not seeing a difference, even at the level of intent. The very word "euthanasia" describes a specific intent, does it not? Yes, good point.
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

klorius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 95

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:08 PM:	#12
Goaswerfraiejen wrote: Intent is important to consider because outcomes are often foiled. Take attempted murder, for example--we could say that because in the end there was no harm (e.g. an officer of the law stopped you before you could spray the cyanide), there was also no foul. Intent should not be the only means of judging an individual's actions, but the action itself likewise cannot and should not be the only factor taken into consideration. It should also be noted that that applies for actions with good intentions as well as those with bad intentions.
To be surprised, to wonder, is to begin to understand. - Jose Ortega y Gasset Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Zi

Goaswerfraiejen
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 422

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:51 PM:	#13
klorius wrote: It should also be noted that that applies for actions with good intentions as well as those with bad intentions. Absolutely.

jdclanc
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/24/08 - 02:35 AM:	#14
If it wrong to kill someone then it could be argued that it is equally wrong to keep them alive. Why it is wrong to kill? If it's because it's violating their right to life then any sort of euthanasia wouldn't be wrong as long as it was voluntary. If it because you are essentially playing God, then life support would be wrong and passive euthanasia would be the only morally correct decision. The natural fallacy would not apply here because that presupposes that people conflate natural with good by ignoring all the bad things in nature. It is a legitimate to believe natural is good/right as long you concede that even seemingly bad things such poisons and death are essentially good. I'm not sure about the logic of this second point, but it makes sense to me even while considering the fallacy.

Evangelos
Metaphysically Gonzo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 14

Posted 05/25/08 - 06:05 PM:	#15
Ataxia wrote: This sounds to me like an appeal to nature (a formal fallacy). It is natural for us to die does that mean it is OK to let someone die when you can save their life? No. What about when you must sacrifice your life to prevent a natural occurence? Say, for argument's sake, you were standing on a road, and a ledge broke off above and you could either escape or save the other, is escape OK?

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.