Ethics question for the philosophers

[pokerfan]

Rewatching the recent Nova episode on recent research in ape intelligence.

Chimps seem to have sense of ethics. In one experiment, there are two cages with a sliding tray of food in between. Chimp 1 is happily eating his food but there is a rope leading from the tray to the other cage. Another chimp is brought in to that cage and allowed to pull the food to himself. As expected, Chimp 1 has a hissy fit and he pulls another rope that he knows will dump the food onto the floor, depriving the "thief."

But when the first rope is removed and a third party (human researcher) is seen moving the food to Chimp 2, Chimp 1 is far less likely to throw the hissy fit and/or dump the food as (the reasearchers interpreted) that would be "punishing" an "innocent" party.

So, like us, intent seems to be important to apes. For example, we use it to distinguish between murder and manslaughter.

It's in this segment on YouTube.

My question is, why is intent so important to us? If someone say kills someone through reckless endangerment or depraved indifference, is not the victime just as dangerous as if the person intended to commit murder? Is not societyjust as much at risk to future harm? In fact, I've read that most murderers commit murder only once and often for a "good" reason (in their minds anyway). Is it not possible for someone who simply causes death recklessly or thoughtlessly to be more likely to repeat.

So why is intent so important? Is it a thought crime?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. We have higher thought processes that don't always govern our

behavior. Intent is everything when dealing w/right and wrong, as opposed to biological drives.

[pokerfan]

2. Yeah, but if the goal is to protect society

I could argue that the repeat drunk driver is more of a threat than a one-time murderer.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. But is it a crime when the behavior is uncontrollable? That's why

crimes of passion are treated differently than pre-meditated murders.

[pokerfan]

5. What if the murderer

murdered because he was being extorted? Still needs to be punished, but he's probably less likely to kill again than someone who recklessly kills without intending to.

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. I can't follow the premise, much less the conclusion. The perpetrator/victim in

this case is just as likely to wind up in compromising circumstances again as any addict. The problem resembles a slippery slope, which is why a jury weighs individual cases. But the principles that apply arise from ancient observations of human behavior, not an arbitrary abstract framework.

[Droopy]

4. Here's one reason why intent is important

A friend of mine once tried to commit suicide by taking 7 painkiller pills. They took him to the hospital, pumped his stomach, and locked him up in the psychiatric ward for 7 days.

Another friend of mine who abuses drugs didn't understand the big deal. He said 7 painkillers is just the start of a good party for him.

The difference is that my first friend thought he was really going to kill himself by intentionally overdosing. I guess you could argue that they both need help, but my first friend really wanted to kill himself while my second friend just likes to get high.

[pokerfan]

6. My mother once tried to commit suicide

so I can empathize.

But a homicidal drunk driver doesn't intend to kill anyone either. Should he be punished?

Should it be a crime to hurt one's self, intentionally or unintentionally?

[Droopy]

9. A drunk driver who unintentionally kills someone isn't considered a murderer is he?

I'm really not sure, but I think that's manslaughter. And, no, I don't think people who hurt themselves should be charged with a crime.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. There are many ethical systems out there, but...

few of us have actually bothered to do more than accept what we learn from family, friends, religion... Terms such as teleological and deontological start to answer questions like yours, but try to find one person who's ever heard of them. Or read Kant. Googling "Ethics" comes up with all sorts of good stuff, and you'll see philosphers have been arguing this for at least 2500 years..

Anyway, there's one strain of thought, mainly religious as far as I know, that speaks of intent as being somwewhat more important than results, and Westerrn ethics takes it cue from that. It goes back to free will, and most of us end up with sayings like "the end doesn't justify the means."

For a simple analysis of this, look at four possible outcomes of an act:

1-- A good intention ends up with good results

2-- A good intention ends up with bad results.

3-- A bad intention ends up with good results.

4-- A bad intention ends up with bad results.

Without wallowing around defining "good" and "bad" or adding more complications about the means one uses, you get the idea.

1 and 4 are pretty clear, and it's easy for us to praise one and villify the other. No mitigating circumstances, gray areas, or messy situations to clear up.

The other two, however, are not so easy to deal with, so we come up with shortcuts and formulae to cut through, or avoid, the messy details. Intent is one way to cut through all of this when things go wrong, and intent will often change things from civil matters to criminal.

[pokerfan]

8. Thanks

[flvegan]

10. Intent is personal, based in the self.

It can be the difference between accident and on purpose. It's premeditation v random. It puts ownership of action directly upon the person that performed, as he is now not only the actor, but the director and production staff.

[pokerfan]

12. Drunk driving isn't an accident either

yet the victim is just as dead and society should still be protected.

[flvegan]

13. Driving drunk is based in intent.

Blowing a tire at 65 in a 70 mph zone and doing damage is an accident.