An ethical dillema

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

From a Utilitarian position, ethics is based largely on consequences. Consequences, however, can be both direct and indirect. I want to know if any of you could help clarify something for me, if you can. If not, thanks anyway.

Person engages in action X, which causes action Y. Action Y, the direct consequences precipitates action Z. Z is indirect to X as a consequence. However, is this a problem?

1. For example, say Man A slaughters the family of Man B, knowing that man B will likely engage in revenge if he can. Man B goes and then blows up man A's house, killing is wife and kids. Here, I would think the direct consequence (bad) of man A's actions is that he unethically killed Man B's family (prima facie). However, according to Utility, one is responsible for both for forseen direct and indirect consequences of an action. In that case, it seems he deliberately put his family in risk of great harm, which came to fruition (and he knew about it generally). This, however was an indirect consequence of the action, it seems. Is it? Is he partially responsible for the negative consequences that stemmed indirectly from his bad action?

Obviously, I would think that both of them would be immoral. A and B.
A would be wrong for killing B's family, and B would be wrong for killing A's uninvolved family. HOwever, it seems as if A brought on B's wrath. He needlessly precipitated harm to his family. Is A also responsible partially for A's loss (not entirely), as well as B's loss?

This is where I have a problem in dealing with indirect consequences. Where does it end? Is it safer to deal with direct? Some people seem to like to abuse the concept of indirect consequences by saying rape victims "brought on their own" consequences, which seems like bullshit. What do you think? I think there is a difference, but I am no logician, and this one stumps me via the indirect side of Utility. It seems as if it can be twisted.

Thanks again.

[kc8tbe]

While I'm not the authority on Utilitarian morals, I submit that the actor is only morally responsible for the consequences he forsaw.

Let me clarify. Suppose I go to a nuclear powerplant and press some buttons at random. Since I am not familiar with the controls of the powerplant, I cannot forsee the consequences of my actions. Still, I am morally responsible for the deaths of thousands upon nuclear meltdown because, had I done the proper reasearch, I would have realized that my actions would have negative consequences.

Now suppose I am in the library and I take random books of the shelves to read. The removal of one book causes a bookcase to fall on top of a librarian. I am not responsible for the librarian's injuries because no one could have forseen that my action would have negative consequences.

Another example: suppose I trespass on someone's property for immoral reasons and directly cause a negative consequence. I am morally responsible for these consequences, even if they could not have been forseen, because they were precipitated by my immoral act. Had I been trespassing in the library, the librarian's injuries would have been my fault. But if I indirectly cause negative consequences that no one could have forseen then it is not my fault because the consequences are only incidentally connected to my immoral act.

Now let's apply these rules to your example. Man A is obviously responsible for slaughtering Man B's family. Because Man A knows that Man B will probably seek revenge and kill A's family, Man A is indeed responsible for his own suffering when his family is killed, which he indirectly caused.

What if Man A is unaware that Man B will slaughter his own family? It is a well know fact that many men will seek revenge if their families are killed. So even though Man A did not forsee that Man B would kill A's family, A would have know this had he done any research on the subject of murder. Thus, A is still responsible for his own suffering.

Finally, what if Man A is mentally handicapped and unable to comprehend that Man B will exact revenge by killing A's family? Man A is still responsible for the direct consequence of B's family's death. Man A is not responsible for his own family's death because he could not have forseen it and because it is an indirect consequence of his immoral act.

So to answer your question: "when does it stop?" It stops when:
1. The consequence if unforseeable and the precipitating act is moral.
2. The consequence is unforseeable, the precipitating act is immoral, but the two are only incidentally related.

[SVPD]

I'd say that A is responsible for the deaths he caused as well as those B caused, (assuming A is mentally competant) because it's reasonably likely that B will engage in the actions you put forth, and A reasonably should know that.

B is still responsible for his own actions, however.

You are responsible for consequences only if you could have forseen them as reasonably likely.

For example:

A police officer fires a TASER at a drunken individual in a bar with a broken glass bottle. 1 probe strikes above the brest pocket of his shirt, the other in the abdomen.

In the man's breast pocket is a plastic butant lighter.

The electricity from the TASER causes the butane to violently ignite, burning the man. (I heard that this actually happened but I can't say for sure.)

Now, the cop might have been able to predict that persons who drink in bars also smoke frquently, and therefore carry lighters, and also that electrical current might ignite butane, but is it reasonably likely that he'll think of this while confronting a violent drunk? And further that the lighter might be in the breast pocket, and end up in the electrical path?

It's pretty unreasonable to think he will be able to predict this event, so he should not be held responsible for it.

[Zero]

This gets a lot trickier when you consider that everyone makes an action based on previous events, and that these previous events follow chains of causality that eventually have jack shit to do with both person A and person B.

That's why I figure that someone can only be held responsible for direct onsequences of their actions. If not, then following a deterministic perspective, the most and least moral action in the universe was the big bang, and no blame can be assigned to anyone.

Of course, there's also assigning relative blame: Person B is more responsible for the death of Person A's family than Person A, but both share some responsibility. This way, greater responsibility is assigned to those closer to the end-event.

[wolveraptor]

When speaking on ethics, I tend to refer to indirect actions as being unforeseeable, while direct actions include the obvious and the clear and logical repercussions. Man A should damn well have known (barring retardation) that revenge is the obvious choice for man B, and therefore, he is somewhat responsible for his family's death. Man B, assuming he killed A's family in a premeditated fashion, is also rather accountable for the deaths of the first man's kin.

I think this becomes rather difficult when a person's childhood experiences cause them to become violent and homicidal maniacs. How much responsibility do we assign them? Could they be given some degree of protection by claiming imperishable psychological damage?

[kc8tbe]

I think this becomes rather difficult when a person's childhood experiences cause them to become violent and homicidal maniacs. How much responsibility do we assign them? Could they be given some degree of protection by claiming imperishable psychological damage?

In a purely utilitarian moral system, we assign just as much responsibility to them as we would have without the psychological damage. Just because something bad happened to person B doesn't mean he's entitled to do something bad to someone else. In a different moral system, this might not be the case.

In other words, yes Person A bears some responsibility for his family's death, but this responsibility is not somehow subtracted from B's responsibility for killing A's family. In a utilitarian system, two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course, I'm assuming that by "imperishable psychological damage" you mean emotional harm and not a psychological disorder that would impair B's sense of right and wrong or otherwise compel him to go murdering people.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aye thanks. I should probably give some context to this entire exercize. I appreciate all of your replies, and they do help clarify the issue.


I was at Borders a week ago, and I was reading an article in the American Prospect, and they mentioned that foreign policy can have real-time consequences for the American populace. This seems true. This got me to think about terrorism and foreign policy.

If a nation, in pursuit of "terrorism" goes at sacks a country that had little to do with it, which precipitated a revenege attack by extremists that ends up killing or maiming the civilians in the mothercountry, I would think that, although the terrorists are directly responsible, the mothercountry to engaged on the offensive would also be partially responsible for the clandestine counterattack no?

Take Iraq. I think the prevailing opinion here is that it was unjustified, so if so, if terrorists do attack and it can be tied directly to US involvement there, would the government have some moral responsibility if they could have forseen it reasonably?

Obviously, I would think that the fact that the war would be unjustified would make them more responsible if justified were a given.

I think this becomes rather difficult when a person's childhood experiences cause them to become violent and homicidal maniacs. How much responsibility do we assign them? Could they be given some degree of protection by claiming imperishable psychological damage?

That's a very good question. I think my class discussed that same issue in educational psychology a few weeks ago. While ecological factors can shape the personality of the individual and help put him at risk, he does ultimately make his own choice, but that choice can easily be shaped or pushed. He would bear most of the responsibility, I would think, but the people who did it to him also would.

Even if he did have something wrong with him, and it was truely not his fault, he would still require isolation from the rest of society, I would think.

[kc8tbe]

Ah. Certainly, if America (i.e. the government) does something to provoke a terrorist attack then, at least from the utilitarian point of view, it is responsible for the attack. There are two fallacious conclusions on may draw from this:

1. The government is/are terrorist(s).
Not true. Granted, the government is indirectly responsible for a terrorist attack. But that does not make it

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist

2. Since the government is capable of being responsible for terrorist attacks, it should avoid provoking them.
People who consider utilitarian logic for esoteric purposes often forget to incorporate all of the consequences of an action. If the government caved into the terrorists requests, the consequence is that America would be an Islamic state. The consequence of a terrorist attack is preferable to the consequence of a theocracy.

By the same token, those who advocate restricting civil liberties in order to prevent terrorist attacks fail to consider that restriction of civil liberties can be a worse consequence than a terrorist attack. Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

[haard]

Ah. Certainly, if America (i.e. the government) does something to provoke a terrorist attack then, at least from the utilitarian point of view, it is responsible for the attack. There are two fallacious conclusions on may draw from this:

1. The government is/are terrorist(s).
Not true. Granted, the government is indirectly responsible for a terrorist attack. But that does not make it

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist

Sure, but

Terrorist One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

TerrorismThe unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

this is what makes the US Government terrorists. I'd not claim that they are without reason, but terrorists none the less.

2. Since the government is capable of being responsible for terrorist attacks, it should avoid provoking them.
People who consider utilitarian logic for esoteric purposes often forget to incorporate all of the consequences of an action. If the government caved into the terrorists requests, the consequence is that America would be an Islamic state. The consequence of a terrorist attack is preferable to the consequence of a theocracy.

By the same token, those who advocate restricting civil liberties in order to prevent terrorist attacks fail to consider that restriction of civil liberties can be a worse consequence than a terrorist attack. Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Bullshit. US not being a Islamic theocracy is not the problem. The US (and EU) using protectionism and economic imperialism while preaching free trade (and forcing third world countries to implement the free trade we don't dare use ourselves) is the problem.