can a person held morally responsible for result not directly inteded? (Ethics)?

Answer 1

If it was unforseeable, I'd say they are not responsible. Morality implies making decisions you feel are for the best, not having psychic abilities! It's really the intention that matters, ethically speaking.

Answer 2

I think it depends on the situation, and how involved a person is in the unintended consequence. For instance, if I am driving fast for a thrill and kill another motorist, clearly I am both morally responsible and blameworthy, even though that was not the intended result. On the other hand, if I sell someone a car and they do the same, or even intentionally run someone down, I think that I would not bear any moral responsibility assuming I did not know their intention--the unintended result was linked to their own action. To push the example further, if I unintentionally strike another motorist while driving fast to get a dying person to a hospital, I would still be morally responsible, although I MIGHT not be morally blameworthy--the unintended harm resulted from an arguably morally justifiable end.

Of course, philosophers disagree about this sort of question. Kant would tell you no, so long as you were acting in accordance with the categorical imperative, since concerning oneself with potential consequences may give rise to one avoiding their moral duties. To trot out the famous example, Kant's ethics would require that if a murderer showed up at your door looking for your roommate, that you should not lie (to do so would be using a person as a means rather than as an end). So if your friend ends up dead because you tell the truth, well, you would not be morally culpable. But clearly, I think there is something flawed here. At any rate, good question.

Answer 3

Ideally the answer is yes. Practically, the answer tends to be no.

The universe, for example, never cuts you any slack. It doesn't matter whether you know a meteor is falling out of the sky or not. If it hits you, you are just as dead either way. You could have taken precautions to prevent being hit by even meteors you don't know about (like living in a cave), but you didn't. Who else is there to blame?

Humans tend to be more lenient, though the same standard lurks under the surface. You are still expected to use your faculty of reason. If you find a device in your yard and you poke it instead of tracking down someone who knows what it is, you are probably at fault if it explodes. But you are not if your shoe does. Though the universe would say you could have avoided both, humans would tend to agree that you had no good reason to take action against the second.

Responsibility, then, clings to outcomes. Humans let you off the hook for unreasonable outcomes.

Answer 4

It depends on the situation, it's what makes Law of Tort so tricky. If the results comes about due to lack of care, then I think they can be held morally responsible. For example you leave a chair out where it cannot be seen properly, like around a corner but somebody trips over it. yes, they can be held responsible.

If, however, someone buys some apples that have gone bad, or food that makes someone sick, no they shouldn't be morally responsible. They had no idea or reason to buy different apples/food.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

Answer 5

If the result was known to be a possibility, and the person took action (or refused to take action) which led to the result, then yes - I believe they could be morally responsible. All situations are unique, of course, but if you sell someone a gun, you have to know that the gun could be used for many different purposes, even those which you, the seller, may not intend.

Answer 6

yes in a limited way. the road to hell is paved with good intentions, be careful and hope for the best when doing something, but i cant stress enough, think.

Answer 7

if that person was careless in their descion then i say yes but besides that no