So by trying to save the lives of a hundred thousand, he inadvertently killed 40,000 with his good intentions.
It's manslaughter at the least. He should've done more tests and been more careful. He knew the evil he could awaken experimenting with GMOs, yet he continued.
Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on September 12, 2016, 05:00:43 AMSo by trying to save the lives of a hundred thousand, he inadvertently killed 40,000 with his good intentions.Challenger's comment about further testing would not be remiss. I think the action is more important than the intentions, because the intentions can be ethnocentric and not entirely in the best interests of a group of people.
Quote from: Arren on September 12, 2016, 09:09:35 AMQuote from: Mr. Psychologist on September 12, 2016, 05:00:43 AMSo by trying to save the lives of a hundred thousand, he inadvertently killed 40,000 with his good intentions.Challenger's comment about further testing would not be remiss. I think the action is more important than the intentions, because the intentions can be ethnocentric and not entirely in the best interests of a group of people.A good point, but wouldn't the alleviation of famine and thus the reducing of suffering be an objectively good action and thus not ethnocentric?
This is kind of going off on a tangent.
Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on September 12, 2016, 09:19:23 AMQuote from: Arren on September 12, 2016, 09:09:35 AMQuote from: Mr. Psychologist on September 12, 2016, 05:00:43 AMSo by trying to save the lives of a hundred thousand, he inadvertently killed 40,000 with his good intentions.Challenger's comment about further testing would not be remiss. I think the action is more important than the intentions, because the intentions can be ethnocentric and not entirely in the best interests of a group of people.A good point, but wouldn't the alleviation of famine and thus the reducing of suffering be an objectively good action and thus not ethnocentric?In this particular example my comment doesn't necessarily apply, I'm more so talking about in principle ethnocentrism can cause suffering. Relativistically, however, not starving would probably rank high on people's "life is good" list. Physical needs are not the only way to impart suffering, however.Say we have a hypothetical in which people from one country want to help the urban poor in another country, but believe them to be ethnically inferior for ethnocentric reasons, so they offer indentured servitude to the urban poor. These people's basic physical needs are covered, which is the ultimate goal of the contract-holder and in their eyes they have moral intentions. Some of the basic freedoms of the urban poor are restricted, however. The contract-holder can still cause suffering in a psychological sense not immediately apparent to them (though one can argue perceiving others as inferior to begin with is immoral, thus their intentions aren't moral to begin with).
Morally, the man is pretty much in the clear. Whether he should be legally is another question, and the answer is he should probably face some consequences.
He failed to consider potential consequences, which resulted in catastrophic loss of life, but he's morally in the clear?
Quote from: TurquíaHiriente on September 12, 2016, 03:55:37 PMHe failed to consider potential consequences, which resulted in catastrophic loss of life, but he's morally in the clear?OP is pretty clear that he couldn't have possibly foreseen the consequences.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 12, 2016, 04:12:38 PMQuote from: TurquíaHiriente on September 12, 2016, 03:55:37 PMHe failed to consider potential consequences, which resulted in catastrophic loss of life, but he's morally in the clear?OP is pretty clear that he couldn't have possibly foreseen the consequences.Oops, reading comprehensionSeems like a dubious premise.
Is the action or intent more important for determining morality?
