Would you think there is a difference between "intentional harm" and "non-intentional harm"

Question

This is a follow-up from "right" and "wrong".

Example:
Intentional harm is where I intentionally kill anorther person
Non-intentional harm is where I accidently stumble into a person whom falls and hits his head on something sharp and dies.

Is non-intention "good" or "bad"?

Answer 1

Lets see, a deliberate malicious act, or a stupid accident.

Nope, death penalty for both.

Answer 2

I think you have to look at the results of the action and the action itself separately. Accidents happen. When those accidents harm other people, it's wrong, but the unintentional actions that lead to those accidents are not necessarily wrong. If I run over a nail in the street which I could not see, and the resulting blow out sends my car into a pedestrian who dies as a result, then the results were wrong but my actions were morally neutral - neither right nor wrong, good nor bad. I didn't intend the accident to occur, no action of mine caused the accident to occur, and there was nothing I could reasonably have done to prevent it.

If I get in the car, wait for my ex-boyfriend to start crossing the street, and then run him over, killing him, the results are wrong. My actions are also wrong.

Intent is not the whole, but it is a significant part.

Answer 3

I think the intention makes all the difference--but one can also be wrong by being neglectful. If you accidentally stumble and kill someone, that was beyond your control; but if you were impaired by a choice you made to use drugs and that caused you to stumble, that's a different story.

We should be intentional and think through the consequences of everything we do in life.

Answer 4

Pun or not it makes no sense at all. "Pound for pound who is the better fighter?" What kind of question is that? Does that mean that if I am smaller I don't have to be as good with my fighting skills as someone who is heavier? Where is the logic is that? If this was a real fight this is the dumbest analogy if your attacker is large and strong and you are small and a bad fighter on top. You don't stand a chance. Clearly someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

Answer 5

Non-intentional is neither good or bad. It was not intended
for the other person to be harmed. The only ethical implication
is for you to help the other person as best as you can.

Answer 6

I'm quite sure God recognizes the intentions of our heart.

If we purpsosely tell a lie God will recognize that and punish accordingly

If we are told something and then go tell the something to someone else;but later find out what was said was a lie,then the middle person concience is clear becuause it was his assumption that what the first said was true.

Answer 7

Yes there is a difference and both are bad in one way or another. non-intentional harm still harms someone.

Answer 8

I would say neither Good nor Bad reason being the 'intent' that you mentioned, just 'unfortunate'

But then, that would depend largely on how you yourself would define good and bad from your perspective

Answer 9

To live your life without intention is bad.

Answer 10

It's neither. It's unfortunate.

To categorize it more, it would be bad, because that person's family has suffered an unexpected loss, but there was no malice driving the event.