The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
"If you commit a big crime then you are crazy, and the more heinous the crime the crazier you must be. Therefore you are not responsible, and nothing is your fault." -- Peggy Noonan
In the legal and moral philosophy of the modern day, the concept of "mens rea"—Latin for guilty mind—plays a crucial role in determining someone's culpability for events. Mens rea refers to a person's mental state when committing an act and is often used to distinguish between intentional wrongdoing and accidental harm. In all nations across history, moral frameworks have considered both intentions and outcomes when evaluating morality, but there may be an alternative.
The alternative view focuses solely on the direct physical consequences of an action. This article explores morality through the lens of actions and outcomes, setting aside mens rea (intentions) to analyse moral responsibility based purely on observable effects. This perspective removes moral responsibility from "indirect involvement" and focuses solely on immediate causality, with the view that causality can only be direct.
In a purely consequence-based analysis, all human actions are either moral (good) or immoral (bad) depending on their direct physical effects in the moment. In other words, guilt is not assigned to the mind but to the person's body and their actions.
Every action has a direct consequence that can be observed in the physical world. If John gives Steve a gun, and Steve later commits murder with it, John's action of gifting remains moral because he did not commit the murder, nor did he have any direct involvement in the act of killing. The murder itself is immoral, as it directly results in harm.
This framework evaluates morality solely on the immediate physical results of an action rather than external considerations like intent or indirect causation. Humans possess intentions that precede their actions. And, mental states (intentions) guide behavior, but they do not always align with outcomes. The interaction between intentions and outcomes forms four possible categories, each with different moral implications.
Good Intention → Bad Outcome: A person acts with positive intent, but their action leads to a harmful outcome. For example, someone throws a basketball but accidentally hits another person and injures (harms) them without their consent.
Bad Intention → Bad Outcome: A person intends harm and successfully achieves it. For example, someone throws a ball with the intention of causing injury, and they succeed.
Bad Intention → Good Outcome: A person attempts to cause harm, but their action unintentionally leads to a positive outcome. For example, someone tries to injure another with a thrown ball, but the ball misses and saves them from another danger.
The likelihood of each situation occurring depends on various factors such as skill, competence, awareness, and external influences. In general, good intentions leading to good outcomes and bad intentions leading to bad outcomes are the most common and readily understood.
Below is a visual representation of these four possibilities with assigned probabilities of how often they occur in general day-to-day life, all things being equal:
This analysis suggests that while intentions matter from an emotional perspective—people like accepting culpability and being judged for their intentions instead of their actions, especially after accidents—the morality of an action should be determined by its direct impact in physical terms. Actions should, therefore, be judged independently of secondary factors like motivation (intentions), focusing instead on tangible results (outcomes).
Written by George Tchetvertakov
Actions and Direct Physical Consequences
Good Intention → Good Outcome: A person acts with positive intent and their action successfully results in a non-harmful outcome. For example, someone throws a basketball aiming for the hoop, and it lands in the basket.
Good Intention → Bad Outcome: A person acts with positive intent, but their action leads to a harmful outcome. For example, someone throws a basketball but accidentally hits another person and injures (harms) them without their consent.
Bad Intention → Bad Outcome: A person intends harm and successfully achieves it. For example, someone throws a ball with the intention of causing injury, and they succeed.
Bad Intention → Good Outcome: A person attempts to cause harm, but their action unintentionally leads to a positive outcome. For example, someone tries to injure another with a thrown ball, but the ball misses and saves them from another danger.
Possibility Matrix
In contrast, good intentions leading to bad outcomes (accidents) and bad intentions leading to good outcomes (false glory) are rare and involve more complexity when conducting a philosophical analysis.
Below is a visual representation of these four possibilities with assigned probabilities of how often they occur in general day-to-day life, all things being equal:
The primary reasoning for this shift would be to prevent wrongdoers from pleading good intentions to avoid personal responsibility for their actions. Suppose someone's intentions are taken into consideration. In that case, it is in their interest to play down their bad intentions and pretend their wrongdoing was an accident, something they did unknowingly, or they were "not in their right mind" -- a strategy often employed by heinous murderers in a last-ditch attempt to reduce their punishment in court. The core problem is that one's intentions can never truly be known, while the outcomes of their actions can.
Despite such controversial principles seeming extreme and unpalatable, they are the only version that can be reasonably justified.
"Heaven knows insanity was disreputable enough, long ago; but now that the lawyers have got to cutting every gallows rope and picking every prison lock with it, it is become a sneaking villainy that ought to hang and keep on hanging its sudden possessors until evil-doers should conclude that the safest plan was to never claim to have it until they came by it legitimately." -- Mark Twain
If someone is the victim of a crime, they intuitively know that the outcome should be scrutinised, not the intention. Even if the damage is done accidentally, the individual wants to be compensated in some fashion, whether it be financial, emotional, or judicial. When a stranger does the damage, outcomes are most certainly focused upon, not intentions. When a known associate does the damage, intentions become relevant, as this helps the victim adjudicate whether forgiveness is justified (allowing immorality to go unpunished).
Ultimately, it is impossible to truly know someone else's intentions, while knowing the outcomes of any event is reasonably possible. The external real world is the same for everyone. In contrast, internal states of mind are entirely subjective and should, therefore, be ignored when adjudicating who is responsible and for what.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
