stretch

Hi,

I have been having a discussion with a group of people about what is and is not intentional. (I think this is a philosophical question ... )

The basic argument can be set up in terms of a self-defense scenario:

I perceive that I (or somebody else) is in danger. The only option that I can think of at the time involves killing the person or persons who are the source of the threat.

Several people in the discussion claim that the killing is 'unintentional' because the main intent is to stop the threat. I claim that it is intentional because I know that in order to stop the threat, my chosen method involves purposefully inflicting death.

Does anybody have any arguments supporting the 'unintentional' interpretation? (If you just wanna agree with me that's fine ... but it might not make for much of a discussion .... )

John Page

Both intentional, the difference is justifiable homicide is not first degree murder. The only way it could be called unintentional is that you didn't intend to kill them because of who they were.

Cheers, John

stretch

Hi John,

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that if you knew that somebody was going to die as a result of your actions, but you weren't sure who it would be, then it's unintentional?

Or maybe you're saying something else ....

denise

John Page

Sorry if its vague, I'm twisting the sense of the word. Perhaps this will be clearer.

"I did not intend to kill X but unfortunately he got in the way and I just had to keep driving my Mercedes."

So, keeping driving was an intentional act which I knew would kill but I didn;t mean to kill X.

Cheers, John

Ensign Steve

Call me boring, then.

It sounds like somebody is trying to deflect some accountability. If you intended to disarm or disable the person who was the threat, and you misjudged the amount of force necessary to do so and the person got dead, then maybe I'll give you that the killing was unintentional.

But if you intended to kill the person because that was the only way to stop the threat, you still intended to kill that person. It may be justifiable, but it is still intentional.

Jen

Princess

Have you thought about the option of Im-mobilizing the threat. Killing is never the only option.

If you kill someone....you should pay the price of taking a life. Who are you to take lives anyway?

Humanity is all on the same pedestal...no one is higher then the rest to make a decision to take lives....of course this is within reason.......

My five cents worth.....

John Page

How about the "Kill or be killed" situation?

stretch

Princess

Can you think of no situations where the only way of stopping an imminent threat is to stop somebody's ability to act, and the only feasible way of doing that is to stop the person's brain activity?

Tom Sawyer

I think the term may come from the fact that your main goal isn't necessarily to kill the person but to save yourself or someone else from being killed.

Intention can have two meanings:

1) A course of action that one intends to follow.
2) An aim that guides action; an objective.

By the first definition, the killing is intentional because the course of action you intend to follow is to kill the person. By the second definition, the killing is unintentional since the objective is to stop yourself or another from being killed.

Applying only the second definition to this situation is a mistake since the first one applies well to the killing of the person and cannot simply be ignored to use the word in its other sense. Inform your friends that they are not actually having a philosophical discussion but are instead arguing about semantics.

stretch

Then how come the moderators haven't moved this to the semantics section.


Actually, the original discussion involved moral philosophy, and I just took a small chunk of it to start the thread

... since, according to some definitions, the act is unintentional, can it be classified as evil?