Re^4: Information sharing

Let's look at the following situation:

You intend to do harm
I provide access to the necessary tool(s)
Before you perform your action, you're killed in an accident

Have I still committed harm? My entire involvement is in steps 1 and 2. The fact that you never actually committed harm shouldn't affect my ethical burden ... or does it?

My point, which wasn't clear, is that to attach ethical burden to intent is to create a thought crime. Intent and action are two different things. "Intended murder" isn't a crime in the US. "Attempted murder", which is the action that just happened to fail, is the crime. (And, frankly, it should have the exact same penalties as murder. You tried to do the exact same thing, but failed. You shouldn't receive legal benefit from your own incompetence.)

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

Comment on Re^4: Information sharing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Information sharing by baruch (Beadle) on Jun 09, 2004 at 15:24 UTC
Good point. I think, though, that you're mixing law and morality, which are not only distinct, but often contradictory. As you say, it is no crime to intend to murder, though in fact I see some erosion of this principle (intent to use drugs is often alleged, for example). But in general, it's still not a crime to intend to commit a crime. On the other hand, I believe that there are consequences to our intents, as well as our actual successful acts. In the case you cited (the person dies before committing the crime), the intent was still to do harm. That no harm actually occurred may mitigate the consequences, but it does not, IMNSHO, eliminate them completely. I acknowledge that this is simply my own belief. At this point it may be necessary for us to agree to disagree, which is fine with me. Some day I may come around to your view, or vice versa. Until then, I respect that you feel as you do (and I assume you reciprocate). בּרוּך	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Information sharing
by baruch (Beadle) on Jun 09, 2004 at 15:24 UTC

Good point. I think, though, that you're mixing law and morality, which are not only distinct, but often contradictory. As you say, it is no crime to intend to murder, though in fact I see some erosion of this principle (intent to use drugs is often alleged, for example). But in general, it's still not a crime to intend to commit a crime.

On the other hand, I believe that there are consequences to our intents, as well as our actual successful acts. In the case you cited (the person dies before committing the crime), the intent was still to do harm. That no harm actually occurred may mitigate the consequences, but it does not, IMNSHO, eliminate them completely. I acknowledge that this is simply my own belief. At this point it may be necessary for us to agree to disagree, which is fine with me. Some day I may come around to your view, or vice versa. Until then, I respect that you feel as you do (and I assume you reciprocate).

בּרוּך

[reply]