Should a person be judged by their actions or the consequences of them?

[VProud]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

 

[Tree of Life]

It doesn't seem to me to be an easy task (or even possible?) to separate actions from consequences.

 

[VProud]

It doesn't seem to me to be an easy task (or even possible?) to separate actions from consequences.

Well, the example I gave seems to do that pretty well (unless is misunderstand you.)

Both are guilty of under-cooking food.

But should Chef B also be guilty of killing a man?

Is intent more important than effect?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Intent is irrelevant. If I intend to help someone and by my actions actually harm them I am as guilty as the one who intends to harm. My intent is not the issue only the consequences are of any import. One might say that if I intend to harm but end up helping, I am still evil, but being evil is not the issue, we are none of us really good in any absolute sense. Is there anyone that can honestly say that they intended good but delivered evil? Is not our intent more often something involving our own personal self interest that we would like to pawn off as selflessness?

 

[Received]

Well, this is a great example of the difference between how justice should ideally be executed, and how it has to be executed in society. If you judge a person based on their intentions, this is always (always) the most just standard to use. But it also opens up the possibility for a lot of corruption and misuse of this standard: "I didn't really *mean* to have this happen, your honor, but it did." At some point you have to offset the negativity external to the intention by punishing the externality as well. And the clear danger here is you run the risk of punishing the externality without considering the intention, which is far from an ideal of justice.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[VProud]

Intent is irrelevant. If I intend to help someone and by my actions actually harm them I am as guilty as the one who intends to harm. My intent is not the issue only the consequences are of any import. One might say that if I intend to harm but end up helping, I am still evil, but being evil is not the issue, we are none of us really good in any absolute sense. Is there anyone that can honestly say that they intended good but delivered evil? Is not our intent more often something involving our own personal self interest that we would like to pawn off as selflessness?

So, you believe it is right to punish someone for something they ultimately have no control over, past the point in-which their control ends?

I feel like someones fault begins and ends with their actions, not the effects of it.

What is the point in punishment, then? If it can be delivered to someone who never intended harm? Doesn't that damage it's status as both a tool of justice and a tool of deterrence?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So, you believe it is right to punish someone for something they ultimately have no control over, past the point in-which their control ends?

I feel like someones fault begins and ends with their actions, not the effects of it.

What is the point in punishment, then? If it can be delivered to someone who never intended harm? Doesn't that damage it's status as both a tool of justice and a tool of deterrence?

Don't So me. Did I even once mention punishments?

 

[Deidre32]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

a chef has no control over how he is preparing food?

that makes no sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the example I gave seems to do that pretty well (unless is misunderstand you.)

Both are guilty of under-cooking food.

But should Chef B also be guilty of killing a man?

Is intent more important than effect?

It depends and this is why motive is so important to show that a person had an intent to do harm to someone.

If no motive or intent was present with chef B, it is possible there was negligence involved and involuntary manslaughter could be a possibility.

 

[Gottservant]

It's a false dichotomy.

Justice is impartial, whether you are living or greatly living.

Chef A gets to call it a fluke or a chance, Chef B gets jail time or the chair.

The point is you are held to account when someone is dead, but your attitude to circumstance affects whether it might or might not ultimately happen to you.

 

[quatona]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

I guess it all depends what the purpose of punishment is, in your worldview.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

Let me ask you a question. Should any of these two chefs receive any kind of punishment/disciplinary action?

 

[Noxot]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

I don't see how anyone can properly judge much of anything correctly seeing as how there are so many variables in why a thing happens ( from my pov ). more often than not human justice has never really been that great of a thing, it is more of a "revenge" and a "punishment" than what I see justice as. for example the usa prison systems are more of a place to torture people than to help them more often than not. a punishment as such may help people to become better but there are much better ways of creating true justice than what humans have often harshly and mercilessly done to an offender. this is because humans have a thing in them called sin and sometimes it gains control of them. good tainted by a little bit of evil can turn good into a very wicked thing. the next thing you know people have confused good and evil and mixed them together and so they have confused ideas about all kinds of things.

justice should always be rooted in love and mercy and it should be handled in that light. in our limited understanding of things that occur we should be giving people the benefit of the doubt and giving them mercy as most people desire mercy. obviously something should be done. but most people are so caught up in the idea that "death is a VERY serious thing" and they have so much fear in their ideas about reality that they do not have much room in them for love and mercy in such a situation. the death of a loved one is not something that can be reverted. death is a serious thing in some respects but not enough to cause more death and suffering for death is not so serious as the true seriousness of the death of a person is that a PERSON died. if we believed differently about death then we would not be so harsh... but human are insane sometimes... they can justify killing thousands of people for dumb reasons ( often it is wars ) and yet an accident happens and they want someone to suffer for the rest of their lives even though this does nothing to truly correct the mistake.

Should a person be judged by their actions or the consequences of them?

they should be judged according to what they are as their highest potential. i don't really understand a way to correctly measure a persons actions and consequences unless it was something plain such as a mass murder should probably be restrained from his own madness. there is a lot going on inside each person and in reality. to only measure their actions or consequences would surly not paint the entire picture. to see each person as eternally special and absolutely irreplaceable would help create a better world. sadly most people are willing to give a special place too those they know or love or like but they are unwilling to love those that they do not have any kind of attachment to... therefore true justice can never be give out by such people.

how different would the judgment of this situation give in the OP be if everyone equally loved all people involved? i would say it would be immensely different... but people are not willing to admit how evil they can be at times. they fall very short of the idea of everlasting love, which would solve all problems in this world if we all could undividedly walk in this divine love.

 

[sarxweh]

In what world would a chef be prosecuted in court for undercooking a meal? Unless it was a privately cooked meal where intent could be proven in court

or a lawless society where you can punish anyone you want for any reason.

So bad example.

But even if you chose a good example (which I formally dare anyone to try to do with this) you can't separate the sin and the punishment. The evil man is accountable whether he is known or unknown as the cause of the wrong.
In the fall account, adam's sin is linked with his punishment directly. You can't separate his deed from his punishment or its a false dichotomy where you misunderstand the nature of how its wrong to begin with.

The time delay of corporal punishment does not mark a cause and effect relationship between crime and punishment. When you drink the poison, you are poisoned.

So its a question of intent and objective reality. But that is because I believe the world was created by a holy god who made everything as a window into his personhood, with man as the chief image bearer and authority over all God made. When you understand that relationship, "wrong" takes on a whole new scope. Which is why the narrative is known as "the fall".

 

[sarxweh]

It doesn't seem to me to be an easy task (or even possible?) to separate actions from consequences.

Exactly

 

[sarxweh]

"In the day you eat of it, you shall die"

The eating of the tree was itself a curse. He didn't get cursed "later." In the instant they ate, they knew they were naked. Death began in the look, the pick, the bite, the swallow.

Your question is about cause and effect and I'm not saying "the cause is the effect". I'm saying that morally, justice may be delayed, but because God is just, injustice is impossible. Adam's sin even is impossible, so even though it happened, and happens for all of us, that "injustice" is reversed - wiped away from the record - undone.

Because the effect of sin is death, or "the wages of sin is death", death is itself the act of thinking and acting outside God's will. To be outside of his will , to be separated from his presence, is to enter a state of cursedness we have all felt and seen in this world.

The basis of moral value can't be some relative superstructure of pluses and minuses felt intrinsically in the human spirit. the only basis for moral value is the intentions of God in making a world at all.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Title.

Let me give an example:

Chefs A and B both under-cook a meal, by mistakes, the same meal, to the same degree.
Chef A's customer gets food poisoning.
Chef B's customer gets food poisoning and resultantly dies.

Should Chef B be punished more severely than Chef A?

On one hand, the family would seek justice against him for causing them sever pain, on the other, should one really be punished for consequences that are beyond their control once the initial deed has been done?

Is it really just to punish someone for something that is out of their control, as opposed to simply punishing them for the 'part' of the even that they had direct influence on?

I think a person should be judged by a COMBINATION of their actions AND intent. The consequences are by-products that are often outside a person's control due to the complicated nature of the world we live in and the high degree of randomness and 'luck'.

If two people perform the same action with the same intent and under the same circumstances, then it should follow that the same consequence should result. If different consequences result, then there was some unknown aspect or some bit of randomness present that was not accounted for that has no bearing on their actions nor on their guilt or innocence as it was out of their control.

Of course, in the real world, no two circumstances are identical. But, it is for this reason that I have a really tough time with manslaughter charges. Lets say you and I are both driving down a road going the speed limit. We are both good drivers and are paying adequate attention. The only difference in our situation is that you are behind me and thus I am a few seconds ahead of you on the road. A child darts out into the road which neither of us could have possibly ever seen and I, being in front, kill the child. My actions and intents are the same as yours but it is simply some cruel act of fate that had me in a slightly different circumstance than you: arriving 15 seconds prior to you. Had the child darted 15 seconds later, the situation would be reversed. And yet, manslaughter charges result for one person and not the other. It seems unfair.

With regards to your chef example, I feel the same way. The actions and intents are identical and, had the two chefs switched plates at the last second by accident, the first chef would have ended up poisoning the customer and leading to death whereas the second chef would have only been responsible for mild food poisoning. It is just some cruel act of fate that the customers received their plates from one chef and not the other (assuming all other facts are equal).

Both parties should be punished for under-cooking their food or not washing their hands or whatever. Perhaps the restaurant should have an inspection to ensure safe food practices. But neither should be punished for killing the customer. In my mind, if you punished the one, you would have to punish the other because it was entirely outside their control as to where the customers sat and which plate got served to which customer.

 

[RDKirk]

In the real world, the death of the customer would not be the only discriminating factor.

As has been mentioned, there will be many factors involved, and if both the plaintiff and the defense are good, those will be closely examined.

The death will not even be for the same "crime." The case of simple food poisoning will be a tort issue with a relaxed standard of evidence. The homicide would result in a criminal trial with a much stiffer standard of evidence.

 

[JohnLocke]

sarxweh:

Here is your example:
Poisoner A desires and schemes to kill Victim Q by injecting iocane powder into his sports drink, which Victim Q subsequently drinks and dies.

Poisoner B desires and schemes to kill Victim W by injecting iocane powder into his sports drink, which Victim W subsequently drinks and goes about his day, because Victim W has developed an immunity to iocane powder.

Under the law, Poisoner A is guilty of murder and Poisoner B is guilty of attempted murder [among other lesser charges like felony food tampering etc.]

To the OP: In what way is Poisoner B any less dangerous than Poisoner A? The only difference between the two cases is that Poisoner B's intended victim had an exceedingly rare immunity.

We have "criminal attempt" to punish those who intend to commit grievous crimes, but fail to execute them (e.g. someone fires a gun intending to kill another, but misses the target).

There are different philosophies of why attempted crimes are not punished as severely as completed ones. My favorite is the assumption that at least part of the reason why the attempt failed was a resurgence of conscience. It doesn't always apply, like the example I gave, but everything is imperfect.