One question that might help you clarify: Fundamentally, is the divide in your head “more interested in taking steps to promote the side effect or in taking steps to avoid it” or “seems to consider the side effect acceptable”?
I think the example of a drunk driver might be an accessible one. Your goal is to get yourself and your car home; your intention is not to hit anyone. In fact, you’d be extremely sad if you hit someone, and would be willing to take some steps to avoid doing so. You drive anyway.
Do you put the risky driving in your intentional category? If you think intentionality means “treats it as a thing to seek rather than to avoid where convenient”, the risk is unintentional. If you think intentionality means “seems to consider the side effect acceptable”, then the risk is intentional because you weren’t willing to sober up, skip drinking, or take a cab.
Thats a very good question, I think your “treats it as a thing to seek” is a good dividing line.
I will admit that I have not fully explored all the grey-areas here before, and was even unsure if there was a strict dividing line—but what you have said here rings true in the cases we’ve considered here.
In the case of hurting a woman to have sex—you are intentionally seeking to hurt her as the path to your objective. In the case of the car-jumping, you are not seeking to have the guy killed. On drunk-driving, I think you are being negligent, but not intentionally seeking to hurt somebody.
One question that might help you clarify: Fundamentally, is the divide in your head “more interested in taking steps to promote the side effect or in taking steps to avoid it” or “seems to consider the side effect acceptable”?
I think the example of a drunk driver might be an accessible one. Your goal is to get yourself and your car home; your intention is not to hit anyone. In fact, you’d be extremely sad if you hit someone, and would be willing to take some steps to avoid doing so. You drive anyway.
Do you put the risky driving in your intentional category? If you think intentionality means “treats it as a thing to seek rather than to avoid where convenient”, the risk is unintentional. If you think intentionality means “seems to consider the side effect acceptable”, then the risk is intentional because you weren’t willing to sober up, skip drinking, or take a cab.
Thats a very good question, I think your “treats it as a thing to seek” is a good dividing line.
I will admit that I have not fully explored all the grey-areas here before, and was even unsure if there was a strict dividing line—but what you have said here rings true in the cases we’ve considered here.
In the case of hurting a woman to have sex—you are intentionally seeking to hurt her as the path to your objective. In the case of the car-jumping, you are not seeking to have the guy killed. On drunk-driving, I think you are being negligent, but not intentionally seeking to hurt somebody.
yep—sounds about right to me.